Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

European Funding

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Highlands and Islands Enterprise to discuss objective 1 funding.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the highlands discussed objective 1 arrangements with Highlands and Islands Enterprise when he met the board in Stornoway last September. Representatives of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, along with other organisations, have frequent contact with Scottish Office officials to discuss objective 1 funding.

Mrs. Michie: Is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable concern and suspicion that objective 1 funding will be used for projects and programmes already earmarked to be undertaken by the Government and local authorities? What assurances can he give Argyll and Bute and the whole Highlands and Islands Enterprise area, and what evidence will he provide to show strict adherence to the principle of additionality?

Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that there will be strict adherence to the principle of additionality. The basis for making that clear was established with the European Commission. It is for the partnership management committee to decide project priorities, but I assure the hon. Lady that the £240 million over six years that we won under objective 1 status will be most useful to the highlands and islands.

Homelessness

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of, State for Scotland when he next intends to meet Shelter (Scotland) to discuss current levels of homelessness in Scotland.

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held recently with Shelter (Scotland) relating to homelessness in Scotland.

The. Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I was very pleased to launch on 25 February the Shelter (Scotland) housing law service, for which the Scottish Office is providing grant aid of £95,000 in 1994–95 to assist homeless people, among others.

Mr. McAllion: Shelter has warned that the Government's proposals to remove the right of the homeless in England and Wales to permanent housing will mean a return to the "Cathy Come Home" era of appalling neglect of the homeless. Will the Minister give a clear and definite commitment that in his forthcoming consultation document on Scottish homelessness, there will be no reduction in the rights of the homeless but a positive agenda for tackling the root cause of homelessness in Scotland—the dramatic decline under this Government of quality, secure and affordable housing for rent in the public sector?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There will be wide-ranging consultation, and we expect the paper to pose questions on all the main points relating to homelessness legislation. At this stage, I do not rule anything out or anything in, but we give top priority to homelessness. It is a key strategic priority and we have an extensive drive to bring empty housing in Scotland back into use.

Mr. Dunnachie: My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred to Shelter (Scotland), but I draw the Minister's attention to the other side of the problem—the homeless who live rough, about whom this Government have forgotten. The Government do nothing for them. Every year in winter, we read newspaper reports about homeless people who have been frozen to the ground and have to be scraped off to be buried. That is a sign of the Government's commitment to the unfortunate people of Scotland who have only cardboard homes and papier-mâché dreams.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We made it clear that statutory responsibility lies with district authorities, and the hon. Gentleman should make strong representations to his own district council. The number of people living rough is quite different from the number applying for housing as homeless or who are homeless. Only a relatively small number—well below 1,000—live rough, but nobody should live rough; everybody should have a house, to which they are entitled. It is the duty of a local authority to make that provision. In Scotland, £426 million is being provided to local authorities through the housing revenue grant allocation.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have a housing record of which they can be proud, having built 20,000 housing units every year since 1979? Is not it outrageous that local authorities in Scotland—particularly those that are socialist-controlled —have thousands of empty housing units? Should not they be urged to rectify that ridiculous anomaly?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since 1979, no fewer than 257,000 new houses have been built; a proportion of those have been in the public sector. Local authorities have built no fewer than 30,000 houses. We have given guidance to local authorities urging them strongly to bring their empty houses back into use. There is a wide variation between different authorities in Scotland. Some of them undoubtedly can do a great deal more.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Does the Minister recognise that many elderly people are now under-occupying their four and five-apartment homes and that homelessness could be helped if the Government embarked on a system


of building sheltered housing for the elderly, with wardens and security so that they are not worried? That would help the homeless problem in many ways, one of them being that young couples could use the four or five-apartment homes which are under-occupied at the moment.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I strongly support the building of more sheltered housing in Scotland by local authorities, housing associations or the private sector. I agree that they have a major role to play. But this year Scottish Homes will be expected to do much more and it will have a lead tenancy arrangement under which empty private property is leased to housing associations for letting to homeless families. The hon. Gentleman's points are valid.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister realise that, since 1979, there has been a loss of 273,000 houses available for rent and that his record compares unfavourably with that of Hermann Goering, who was responsible for a considerably smaller reduction in houses available for rent?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady is referring to the nearly 300,000 houses that have been bought by sitting tenants. Of course, if those tenants had not bought them, they would have continued to live in those particular houses. I have already said that 257,000 houses have been built since 1979, and a great many more will be built in the future.

Economy

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the Scottish economy.

Mr. Lang: My ministerial colleagues and I have frequent contacts with the STUC on a range of matters concerning the Scottish economy. We look forward to a continuing exchange of views.

Mr. Clarke: Has the Secretary of State drawn up an emergency plan to alleviate the situation when the tax increases hit the Scottish economy?

Mr. Lang: I confidently anticipate that the recovery in the economy that is now strongly evident will continue, based on low inflation, competitive exchange rates and low interest rates. All forecasters are contemplating expansion this year—including the estimates from the CBI and chambers of commerce. I do not think that the situation that the hon. Gentleman anticipates will arise.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why the Scottish economy today is much better than it was in the 1978–79 winter of discontent, and why the Scotch whisky industry is exporting at massive levels is that, as a result of trade union legislation passed by the Government, Scotland's unit labour costs have made us the most competitive country in the European Union?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He might like to know that our manufactured exports last year reached a record level and achieved a growth of 12.6 per cent. during the year.

Mr. Donohoe: The Secretary of State will no doubt have been well briefed on the report just issued by the Select Committee on Transport in connection with bilateral agreements and in particular the way in which they affect

air freight. Does the Scottish Office intend to make any representations to improve the business of Prestwick airport?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government responds to Select Committee reports in the conventional way. I welcome the commitment of the private sector to help Prestwick airport grow. The importance that the Government attach to infrastructural projects of all kinds is evidenced by the allocation of resources under the Scottish Office spending programme.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read Monday's report, which predicts that up to 5 billion barrels of oil are still to be discovered and exploited off the west coast of Shetland? Does he agree that, with the expertise that we have in Aberdeen and throughout Scotland, that presents a tremendous opportunity for the entire Scottish economy?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The sympathetic tax regime and licensing system that the Government have applied to the offshore industry have stood us in good stead for many years now, and I expect that they will continue to do so as those exciting new projects are developed.

Mr. George Robertson: Does the Secretary of State accept that as the Government move from deceit to defeat, their broken tax promises will do immense damage to the Scottish economy? Does he accept that the price of their economic failure will be paid by Scottish families, who will have to pay an extra £10 a week in new taxes after April, and probably a further £8 a week as the price of butchering Scottish councils? Will the Government ever be trusted on tax again?

Mr. Lang: If the Labour party understood anything, it would realise that it is occasionally necessary to have temporary increases in taxation in order to maintain confidence in the continuing recovery of the economy—a recovery which will continue the trend of rising employment and falling unemployment in Scotland. Scotland now has the lowest unemployment of all the countries in the United Kingdom—almost two points below the European average. I have confidence that that recovery will be sustained and that in 1997 Scotland will say no to the Labour party.

Mr. Gallie: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the 4·3 per cent. reduction in Scotland's jobless over the past 12 months? Is he aware that, in my constituency, in the Ayr travel-to-work area, the figure is 8 per cent? Will he say what he can do to sustain such progress, given the current difficult world situation?

Mr. Lang: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall stick to the policies that have delivered that success—policies that have increased employment in Scotland over the past decade by 183,000 jobs, with self-employment now at its highest ever recorded level.

Highlands and Islands

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next hopes to visit the highlands and islands to discuss the economic situation.

Mr. Lang: I hope to visit the highlands and islands again soon, and no doubt while I am there I shall discuss their successful economy. The highlands and islands are well placed to participate in the economic growth that it is Government policy to sustain.

Mr. Macdonald: The Secretary of State will know that the salmon farming industry in the highlands has been under severe pressure over the past year because of Norwegian dumping. What are the Government doing to prod the Commission into launching an anti-dumping investigation on the basis of the Ernst and Young report handed to the Commission by the industry last week?

Mr. Lang: We have had continuing contacts with the industry about that matter, and we have emphasised to its representatives that they must pursue the matter with the Commission. We have encouraged them to do that, and have given them some assistance in that direction. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for fisheries visited Norway recently to meet the Norwegian Fisheries Minister, and my officials have engineered a meeting between Scottish and Norwegian salmon growers. In those and in other ways, we are keen to help with the problem, which I recognise is a difficult one.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the most important industries in the highlands is the Scotch whisky industry, whose exports are growing, so Scotch whisky can be mixed with privatised water in countries other than Scotland? When my right hon. Friend speaks to the Highlands and Islands development board will he ask it what estimate it would make of the impact on unemployment in the highlands of a national minimum wage and the adoption of the social chapter?

Mr. Lang: I assure my hon. Friend that the mixture of whisky and water that he mentioned is something which I look forward to seeing for some considerable time to come. The sensitivity with which successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have recently treated the issue of whisky taxation has contributed in no small part to the improved export figures, as has the progress made in persuading countries round the world to readdress the issue of their taxation of whisky.

Mr. Wray: Does the Secretary of State agree with the House that water is an important commodity to the economy in the highlands and islands? Given that the overwhelming majority of the people of Strathclyde—97 per cent.—voted against the prospect in a referendum, will the right hon. Gentleman now abandon his plans for the privatisation of water, for setting up boards and for franchising of any kind?

Mr. Lang: We do not have plans to privatise water and therefore we cannot abandon them. However, I am confident that the plans that we have for public water authorities will lead to the most efficient and the cheapest source of water and sewerage services under the new local authority structure.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Secretary of State aware that, at the end of the month, when the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay is closed, 1,500 jobs will be lost to the north of Scotland as a result of the misguided policies of the Government? Is he aware that that has led to the ending of apprenticeships at the site and to a draining of scientific

skills, which must be the basis of the future of the economy of the north and that, notwithstanding the excellent work that has been done by development agencies, those skills are in short supply? What plans does he have to use the site at Dounreay as a focus for skilled development of advanced industries?

Mr. Lang: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there would be no point in the Government sustaining employment or activities for which they could not see a recognised purpose and that, therefore, the decision about Dounreay was right. Nevertheless, substantial resources have been injected into the area to help the local economy to diversify and they are already beginning to yield considerable success.

Queensferry Road Bridge

Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of producing the document "Setting Forth"; and what costs have been incurred since its publication in connection with the proposal to build a second road bridge at Queensferry.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The "Setting Forth" consultation document and the Government's response cost £54,000 to produce. Feasibility studies have since been conducted into proposals for a new bridge and link roads as part of the "Setting Forth" package, which have cost about £3.5 million.

Mr. Darling: As so much public money has been squandered, will the Minister hold a full public inquiry so that the need for that bridge, the rail-based alternative and the environmental impact of the bridge may be examined? Does he accept that, just as 97 per cent. of people said no to water privatisation, 97 per cent. of people who live in his constituency, in my constituency and in Scotland would say no to that act of monumental stupidity?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do not accept that there is any point in prejudging an issue before the full facts are known. Reports on the feasibility studies will be with me in the next few weeks and thereafter will be made available publicly. The hon. Gentleman used the expression "squandered". I shall make it quite clear that the cost to date is less than 1 per cent. of the total potential investment under "Setting Forth". The Government's response document estimated costs of £382 million for proposals for a new bridge and roads, with rail improvements costing £9 million. Almost 50 per cent. of the package of proposals relates to projects other than the bridge—park-and-ride, a possible railway stop near the airport, new railway stops and countless other measures. The matter needs to be considered objectively as a whole, which it shall be as soon as the feasibility reports are available.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: When the Secretary of State for the Environment is telling us that we must place less reliance on the motor car, why is the Scottish Office persisting in this ludicrous project? Is not the proper way in which to approach the difficulty of access to Lothian from Fife to make a massive investment in public transport, especially the rail network?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. and learned Gentleman should be aware that already some 70 per cent.


of transport is accounted for by public transport across the Forth and that is the potential market. Obviously, we must get the balance right between public and private transport. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) asked about a local public inquiry. If the Secretary of State were minded to proceed, the normal statutory processes would obviously be involved, which would almost certainly result in a public inquiry.

Game Fish Stocks

Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies are being carried out on behalf of his Department to assess the effect on game fish stocks in Scotland of predation by fish-eating birds.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): The Scottish Office undertakes long-term research into salmon stocks and has commissioned work on the diet of fish-eating birds to help assess the effects of predation.

Mr. Kynoch: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will he aware of the importance to the economy of my constituency of salmon fishing on the River Dee and the River North Esk. Is he aware that there is significant concern about the low level of salmon stocks in the rivers, which is believed to be due partly to drift-netting in the north-east of England and also to predation by fish-eating birds such as goosander? Will he accelerate the phasing out of north-east drift-netters and, if investigations show that goosander are a problem, will he increase the level of culling of those birds?

Sir Hector Monro: I absolutely accept what my hon. Friend says about the importance of north-east rivers to tourism and rod fishing. We are careful about issuing licences and do so only after discussions with Scottish National Heritage. Where it is justified, licences will be issued. I am aware of the continuing contention surrounding the north-east drift-nets and I am glad that phasing out has begun; 13 per cent. occurred in the first year, which is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that there is a plentiful supply of game fish in Loch Bradan reservoir which provides fresh water to my constituents, 97 per cent. of whom voted against the Government's water proposals? In view of that, how can the Government in all honesty still press ahead with the unwanted, unnecessary and unworkable proposals?

Sir Hector Monro: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman rates his vote on a par with his salmon. I note that the Labour party is committing suicide in 1997 by asking us to vote no.

Road Safety

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new initiatives he has for improving safety on Scottish trunk roads.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish Office is taking a number of new initiatives in the fields of engineering, education and enforcement, which are designed to improve safety on trunk and other roads in Scotland. These include measures to reduce vehicle speeds to bring down the number and severity of accidents.

Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that, rather than taking holidays in some grotty, overpriced, lager-loutinfested continental resort, I prefer to spend my holidays hill walking in Scotland? Is he aware that, to get to the hills and mountains, one must drive along many miles of dual carriageways and motorways, many of which do not have crash barriers along the central reservation—including the A74, along a number of miles of which there were no crash barriers until recently? What progress has been made in that important safety area?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the matter. We made a deliberate policy decision to install safety barriers between dual carriageways and motorways. That is being done through a rolling programme not only for new motorways but for all existing ones. I am encouraged that my hon. Friend spends his holidays in Scotland, as do many of my colleagues on the Conservative Benches. Although he may not be attracted to lager, the water of life—by which I mean whisky—is good when taken in moderation.

Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that as regards prevention and deterrence, the finest and most effective safety measure to be taken on our roads is the substantial presence of police patrol cars? Why are there so few of them on our roads? Why is the Scottish Office refusing to give the assistance that is needed to put more cars and more police officers on our roads?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Some time ago, there was an additional allocation for more police vehicles in Scotland and, of course, capital allocations for the police have been increased. As well as cars, we are installing speed detection cameras. They have had a valuable deterrent effect in slowing down motorists who otherwise would be checked and brought to book.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May I ask my hon. Friend—as I frequently have, although not in the House—to improve signposting in Scotland? Nothing is more dangerous than a person who does not know where he is going? [Interruption.] Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition. In a letter from the Department, I was told that a person who is distracted by signposts is more likely to be unsafe than someone who is not so distracted. I thought that someone who did not know where he was going was more likely to be a danger than someone who did know where he was going. I have frequently asked my hon. Friend to make signposts available, for instance, on the Stirling road; a choice of Edinburgh or Glasgow is given, but the signposts do not tell people where the Kincardine Bridge is.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are putting in place more route action plans. It is important to have uniform signs and marking, as well as skid-resistant surfacing and safety fencing where appropriate. We will bear in mind my hon. and learned Friend's points. I am aware of his aesthetic objections to gantries, but they, too, serve a valuable purpose in giving information to motorists.

Mr. McFall: The Minister will know that, among other roads, the A82, A77 and A78 trunk roads have school buses travelling along them. Is not it beyond belief that the Government can find resources for national television and radio campaigns that encourage the use of seat belts in all minibuses and coaches, while they stonewall on calls to


legislate to make it mandatory for seat belts to be fitted in all minibuses and coaches? Sanctimonious appeals by the Government for the public to act responsibly are insufficient. Does the Minister agree that every school pupil is entitled to a seat on a bus to himself? Will the Government therefore amend the legislation to ensure that and to assist local authorities in their drive to get safety on school buses?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am aware of the deep-felt concern on that subject following the recent tragic accidents in Biggar and elsewhere. The matter is being urgently and actively considered, and I have met the Minister for Roads and Traffic at the Department of Transport. One of the problems is that of enforcement, as buses from other parts of Europe come here and the situation is governed by an EC regulation. I accept the urgency of the matter.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that while signposting and barriers are always helpful, the basic condition of the road is more important? Will he give an assurance that, in the near future, the A75 to Carlisle will be upgraded? Is not that vital both to the economies of south-west Scotland and of Northern Ireland and to the safety of those who travel. on that road?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have spent over £100 million on such trunk roads. Of course that is an important route for Northern Ireland and we will continue to give priority where we can to it and to other trunk roads, particularly the M74.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Maxton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government finance.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend and I met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 28 January, and plan to meet them again on 17 June as part of the normal consultation with the convention on local government finance matters.

Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister agree that the cavalier dismissals from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State of the amazing referendum result on the future of water in Scotland are insulting to the intelligence of the people of Strathclyde? Are not they particularly insulting to the 96 per cent. of the Minister's electorate who voted no in that referendum? Are not they also a complete negation of all democratic principles in Scotland.? Will the Minister now take the opportunity to tell COSLA that he is withdrawing his proposals for water, or have we now reached the point where the views of the Scottish people do not mean a damn thing to the Government?

Mr. Stewart: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions are no, no, no and no.
In relation to local government finance, if Strathclyde can easily find £750,000 for a wholly misleading and meaningless exercise, it suggests that, if anything, my right hon. Friend's local government finance settlement verged towards the excessively generous in Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great challenges for local government finance during the next few years will be how we adequately fund the updating of the water and sewerage systems throughout Scotland? That challenge can be met only if it is looked at objectively, sanely and in the light of where funds can be obtained from. The displaying of badges does nothing to help the debate, and it will certainly not help the Standing Committee when the Chairman is displaying his prejudice.

Mr. Stewart: Could I say in response to my hon. Friend's general point—

Madam Speaker: Order. I did not understand the last sentence of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I wonder whether he could make it clear because I am not sure whether what he said was acceptable.

Mr. Walker: By convention, in the Chamber, the Chairmen of Standing Committees do not speak or show their views on matters that are being discussed in a Committee. I believe that an error of judgment has been made today.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is right to refer to the need for new investment in water and sewerage services in Scotland.

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I normally take points of order at the end of questions, but I have the impression that the hon. Gentleman who has just repeated his question did not repeat it in exactly the same terms. I believe that he said originally that the Chairman of a Standing Committee was prejudiced because he was wearing a badge. [Interruption.] Order. Let me deal with the matter. If that is the case, I require the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remarks and to rephrase them.

Mr. Walker: I have no hesitation in obeying your instruction to withdraw remarks because I always accept the decisions of the Chair. I believe that an error of judgment has been made—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to an opinion, provided that it is within the rules of the House.

Mr. Walker: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I believe that an error of judgment has been made. I believe that I was in order to draw attention to it. If I did so wrongly, I apologise to you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. We shall now have the Minister to respond to the original question.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North was right to refer to the need for new investment in water and sewerage services in Scotland. We have proposed an effective partnership between the public and private sectors to ensure that.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister expect that when he and the Secretary of State next meet the president of COSLA, Councillor Gray will remind them of a letter that he received from the Prime Minister shortly before Christmas on water and sewerage services, which said that the proper way to proceed was one that would allow


Scottish opinion to be given expression through Members of Parliament? There can be no doubt that Scottish opinion is in favour of the removal of the Government's proposal for water and sewerage. The proper parliamentary response would be to remove the relevant clauses from the Bill and to make proposals that would allow for water and sewerage services to be in the hands of democratically accountable people. Will the Minister do that?

Mr. Stewart: The Bill to reform local government in Scotland and change the structure of the delivery of water and sewerage services was presented to the House and received a Second Reading by a majority of 41.

Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister agree with COSLA that the results of the Strathclyde water ballot demonstrate the democratic bankruptcy of this Westminster Parliament? Who will decide the future of Scotland's water? Will it be the 1 million or more Scots who reject the Minister's plans or the five English Tory Members of Parliament in a House of Commons Committee who have dictated each and every vote against the Scottish public interest?

Mr. Stewart: Given the reception that the hon. Gentleman's question received on the Labour Benches, it seems that, yet again, the united front against the Government has fallen apart. The Bill is in Committee. It is being considered line by line in great detail. It will come back to the House. The House will decide on the Bill and it will then go to another place. I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman fundamentally. This is the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

Mr. George Robertson: I am not in the slightest surprised that the Secretary of State for Scotland has dodged the column on this issue today of all days and passed the buck to the junior Minister. After yesterday's historic 97 per cent. rejection of their water policy, the Government have to face the fact that they have decisively and humiliatingly lost the argument and that if they continue to lose arguments and to treat the people of Scotland and their views with contempt and arrogance, on 5 May they will get the punishment that they richly deserve. Surely even this Minister can now see that the message from the people of Scotland to the Government is loud and clear: scrap the plans for water and keep it under local democratic control.

Mr. Stewart: This is the first question I have answered during Question Time today—I thought for a moment that I might not be answering any. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has answered a considerable number of questions. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) knows perfectly well that I have never accepted the legitimacy of the so-called referendum in Strathclyde—not beforehand, not during and not afterwards. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to argue his case in the Standing Committee on those occasions when he attends its sittings.

Parliament Building

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about the future of the Scottish Parliament building, currently used by the Crown Office.

Mr. Lang: The old Royal high school was vacated by the Crown Office on 31 January and was then offered for sale to its former owners, Edinburgh district council, by its present owners, Property Holdings, that part of the Department of the Environment responsible for Government buildings. I understand that the council has decided to buy the building.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State congratulate Edinburgh district council on having the foresight to buy back the building as a future home for the Scottish Parliament? In view of recent suggestions that, in the meantime, the building might be used as a courthouse for the trials of certain categories of international criminals, would not it be appropriate to place in the dock the Secretary of State and his henchmen on the Government Front Bench who are betraying the people of Scotland by conspiring to steal their water and refusing them a Scottish Parliament, which is their democratic right?

Mr. Lang: I hope that Edinburgh district council will have more foresight about the future use of the building than the hon. Gentleman. As far as I am concerned, the Government are answerable to the High Court of Parliament.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend concede that Edinburgh is rapidly going down the same road as London, with hotel rooms costing a fortune? Does he think that, just as we did away with the last bastion of socialism—the GLC opposite—which is now being made into a hotel, which will help to lower the prices of hotel rooms—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We are a long way from across the River Thames. We are afloat on this one. I want to hear a question that relates to the original question.

Mr. Galloway: Given the almost unbelievably contemptuous—even by the Secretary of State's standards —way in which an exercise where 1.25 million Scots put pen to paper, paper to envelope, envelope to pillar box and pillar box to the Strathclyde region to demonstrate their views on the privatisation of Scottish water—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have chastised one hon. Member for not relating his question to the original question. I want a question that relates to what is on the Order Paper.

Mr. Galloway: Why cannot we have, not a so-called referendum, but a Government-organised referendum on the future of the Scottish Parliament building, the future of Scottish government and national self-determination for the Scottish people? Will the Government ever listen to Scottish voices?

Mr. Lang: Yet again, the hon. Gentleman comes along with another multi-option referendum in mind. The fact is that we have well-established democratic procedures which have been tried and tested over the years and are impervious to the kind of mob rule that the hon. Gentleman favours so much—and it is noticeable that the mechanisms of mob rule are the ones that he favours.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect of the provisions of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill on the standards of public life in Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: The introduction of single-tier councils will mean that local authorities in Scotland and those who serve on them are more accountable, more accessible and more responsive to their electorates.

Mr. Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that four companies controlled by Monklands district councillors have made losses of about £6 million over three years, resulting in Monklands council having one of the highest council taxes in Scotland? Is not he concerned that local government legislation does not allow for those council companies' accounts to be investigated properly? Will the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill be amended to ensure that such accounts are investigated properly? Will he consider the fact that Airdrie has had enough of Coatbridge and might want to go its separate way after local government reorganisation in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: On my hon. Friend's last point, I have agreed to meet a number of Opposition Members who represent constituencies in Lanarkshire to hear their views on council boundaries under the new system. As for his first point, as I understand the figures, he is correct to say that the Monklands-owned companies have lost about £6 million. That is a cause of general concern, which has been raised with us as a matter of principle, and we are considering the possibility of amending the Bill to change the monitoring of companies owned by councils.

Mr. McLeish: Would not the standards of public life in Scotland be greatly enhanced if the Government stopped treating the electors of Scotland with such arrogance and contempt? Is the Minister now willing to listen to the 1.2 million people in Strathclyde who said no to Tory proposals to butcher our water and sewerage industries and, of course, in the process inflicted a humiliating defeat on the Government? Or is the Minister willing simply to accept that the price of the Government's stupidity, authoritarianism and sheer bloody-mindedness will be the continuing destruction of public confidence in the democratic process, the continuing erosion of standards of public life and, more important for that lot across the Chamber on the Government Benches, the virtual annihilation of the Tories at the next regional and European elections?

Mr. Stewart: I hardly think that that question is worth an answer. It is an absolute disgrace that members of Labour's Front Bench should dress up like childish rabble. As I said to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I have consistently stated that the so-called referendum was not legitimate. However, as the hon. Member also knows, we have amended the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill in Standing Committee in response to reasoned debate.

Mr. Riddick: Will the local government reforms put an end to the shocking behaviour of Labour-controlled Monklands council, which has issued special green job application forms to friends and relatives of Labour councillors and pink application forms to everyone else? Does my hon. Friend agree that the yellow card should be

shown to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who has had nothing to say about the matter, but that the red card should be shown to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Leader of the Opposition, who has refused to condemn the scandalous behaviour of providing jobs for Labour boys?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the fact that many people are extremely puzzled by the Leader of the Opposition's continuing silence on those matters. On my hon. Friend's specific point about the different colour forms, my information is that, following considerable public criticism, that practice has now been abandoned by the council.

Mr. Hood: When the Minister gets to deal with tourism, in the Committee, will he step back from the Government's nonsensical decision to amalgamate Clyde Valley—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I cautioned the House twice last week about the fact that we do not discuss what is taking place in Standing Committee. That is for the Committee itself until it reports to the House.

Mr. Hood: Will the Government go back on the nonsensical decision that they have taken to amalgamate Clyde Valley tourist board with Glasgow tourist board? Is the Minister aware that that will destroy jobs and tourism in the Clyde valley? It is nonsense and the Government should withdraw from it.

Mr. Stewart: I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. Obviously, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) had to take a wide range of factors into account, and has done so. I understand that my hon. Friend has had a meeting with the hon. Gentleman, but I am sorry to say that there seems to be a continuing disagreement with his views. I do not believe for a moment that the new structure will have the adverse effect that the hon. Gentleman believes that it will.

VAT on Fuel

Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what special measures he plans to monitor the effects of VAT on fuel on the elderly and the low-paid in a colder climate than the British average; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stewart: A generous package of compensation measures is in place to assist vulnerable people with the costs of VAT on domestic fuel.
The Common Services Agency of the Scottish health service already gathers statistics on hospital admissions, including those relating to hypothermia and other ailments that may be linked to winter conditions.

Mr. Graham: The Minister knows well that in Scotland we need 40 per cent. more energy to heat houses than do people in the south. We have 2 million elderly and disabled people who are relying on being able to heat their homes, yet the Government create a loophole whereby the rich get warmer and the poor get colder. When will this mean-minded, cold-hearted, loopy-loo Government do


something to fight for the elderly and the disabled, to allow them to heat their homes so that they can live in comfort and not in cold, damp, wet houses?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is talking even more rubbish than he usually does. The measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will ensure that the introduction of VAT does not put the cost of fuel beyond the poorest in our society. The package that has been announced is worth about £2.5 billion over three years, It covers direct help from the DSS, cold weather payments and increased resources for the home energy efficiency scheme. Those are the facts.

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend will be aware that the 50p and 70p package which has been announced is sufficient to pay a fuel bill of £325 or £455 respectively. Is he aware that figures that I have received from Scottish Hydro Electric plc show that the average electricity bill for a typical two-apartment home in the north of Scotland is about £300 per annum, which means that the package is sufficient to compensate? Should not the Opposition, instead of scaremongering, go out with the facts and try to reassure elderly people who are less fortunate than themselves?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. He refers to electricity prices, which have fallen. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen to this. Electricity prices have decreased by about 8 per cent. in real terms since 1986. Tariffs in Scotland are among the lowest in the United Kingdom. That is partly a result of the success of the Government's privatisation policy.

Housing

Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the amount of capital spending that would be required to cure public housing in Glasgow and Scotland of dampness and water and wind ingress.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The 1991 Scottish house condition survey showed the extent to which local authority and new town dwellings were affected by dampness. No information is available as regards wind ingress. Obviously, the degree of severity will vary and it is for individual landlords to estimate the cost of works involved in tackling dampness in their stock.

Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister agree that the action that is being taken by the Government to cure dampness is insufficient? Does he also agree that at least 97 per cent. of Scots believe that the Government are not doing enough in that regard? Is not it absurd that the Government are not prepared to help Scots to get rid of water that they do not want, but are insisting on getting rid of the water that they want, through their councils, to keep?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In Glasgow's case, the resources to be spent on public sector housing in the coming year amount to £95.85 million. In addition, there is an allocation of more than £25 million for improvement grants and repair grants. Thus, the total is £121 million. I accept that not everything can be done overnight. However, that matter should be dealt with as a top priority,

especially where there is severe dampness and condensation. I have no doubt that Glasgow district council has the resources and the ability to take this policy forward effectively.

Sir David Steel: Will the Minister try to speed up a reply to me on the question of communal blocks of housing in my constituency that suffer from water penetration? The fact that some of those have been sold to private individuals and that others are in the hands of local authorities has resulted in a legislative nightmare. The hon. Gentleman should be more expeditious in his offers of help.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will look into the right hon. Gentleman's particular point concerning communal blocks in his constituency. The non-housing revenue account and the improvement and repair grants can also be of assistance in the case of privately owned housing, and that factor needs also to be borne in mind.

Woodlands (Public Access)

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the powers currently available to the Forestry Commission to ensure woodland sold by it retains public access rights; and what plans he has to extend public access rights to such land.

Sir Hector Monro: Before offering a woodland for sale, the Forestry Commission notifies the relevant local authority and offers to enter into an access agreement with it to provide for continued public access after sale. Public rights of way are not, of course, affected by changes of ownership.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. He will know that the Forestry Commission has been effective in providing more and greater access to forests, particularly those in my constituency of South Dorset. Most of my constituents are very keen that, following the Government's current review of forestry, they should continue to have access. When does my hon. Friend expect to be able to come forward with the Government's plans to get over some of the problems arising from the denial of access when the Forestry Commission sells land?

Sir Hector Monro: I note what my hon. Friend says. I am glad that he has had such a satisfactory relationship with the commission in Dorset. As he knows, we received the forestry review group's report at the end of last month. That is important and we must go through it in great detail with_ all the Ministers involved. We hope to come to conclusions fairly soon. I assure my hon. Friend that access is a high priority, especially given that a sub-committee, having looked into the question, was not too impressed with what had been happening.

Mr. Galbraith: Is the Minister aware that in Scotland there is widespread concern about access to the countryside and to the mountains, not just because of the privatisation of forests but because of clauses 52 and 53 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill? Will the hon. Gentleman try to ensure that those two clauses, which deal with aggravated trespass, do not apply to Scotland?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman knows that this question deals with the Forestry Commission and with



access to forests. The House will have noted his remarks, but I think that he is misinformed as to the likely results of the two clauses to which he has referred.

Exports (Woollen Goods)

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the annual export value of Scottish woollen scarves and mufflers for the past three years.

Mr. Stewart: Export values for the United Kingdom for scarves and other accessories of any knitted or crocheted material were £53.5 million in 1990, £53.4 million in 1991 and £65.2 million in 1992. Figures for the whole of 1993 are not yet available. I hope that this wraps up the information requested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Scottish textile industry on its huge success over many years, against fierce competition? Is my hon. Friend aware that, since that lot opposite embraced the American-Anglo friendship, exports to America have increased? In view of that, will he give a particular hon. Member not the Grand Order of the Thistle but the "grand order of the muffler"?

Mr. Stewart: I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that the industry in Scotland is alert to all opportunities in the marketplace, both nationally and internationally. Indeed, there may well be an increased market among Labour Members who may wish to wear woolly scarves and hats made in Scotland when they visit their friends in Belgravia and elsewhere.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding the figures for exports of mufflers and scarves, no mufflers and scarves in the colours of Clyde football club are available in Cumbernauld new town, where the club recently took up occupation of its new stadium? Is he aware that the new stadium is a great success, that it is part of a new complex for business in Scotland and that the people are enthusiastic about that, just as they are enthusiastic about bringing jobs to Cumbernauld?

Mr. Stewart: I am glad to reassure the hon. Gentleman that I entirely agree with him. Although I was not able to attend the opening of the new stadium, as he was, it is an excellent asset and advertisement for Cumbernauld new town.

Personal Pensions

Mr. John Denham: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the crisis in personal pensions that now threatens the retirement incomes of more than 2 million people".
The problem is very clear and very simple, but the Government have attempted to conceal it behind complacency and inaction.
The problem affects people who have left the state earnings-related pension scheme, but whose incomes are below about £10,000 a year. Their contribution to their personal pensions is too low: after the pension companies have taken management fees and profits out of their savings, their pensions will be less than they were under SERPS.
The Government slipped out the figures that reveal the position just before Christmas. In January, 147 Labour Members signed a resolution highlighting the problem. Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte estimates that 2.4 million people—40 per cent. of all those who have personal pensions—are now affected in this way. Despite that continuing pressure, the Government have done and said nothing.
With every day that passes, the future retirement incomes of nearly 2.5 million people are being unnecessarily and scandalously reduced. The Government have had more than enough opportunities to make a statement or arrange a debate in the House; I hope that it will now be possible for the House to adjourn, so that we can debate the matter that the Government do not wish us to debate.

Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I must state my decision without giving any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Scottish Question Time, on Question 10, I endeavoured to come up with a helpful supplementary about using the planned Scottish parliament building in Edinburgh to create extra hotel rooms, as was done in London with the building used by the Greater London council. You cut me off in my prime, and did not allow me to explain the connection with Question 10. It was clear where my question was leading, as will be seen from Hansard tomorrow. I am particularly upset by the fact that, although you ruled the following supplementary out of order as well, you allowed the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) to continue.

Madam Speaker: I quite understand that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) was working towards the relevant part of his supplementary,

but perhaps I might advise him—and other hon. Members —to begin with the relevant part in future, rather than keeping me waiting in hope.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise this matter with you in your role as guardian of the rights of Back Bench Members.
Last Monday, I arranged through the office of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to visit Campsfield detention centre near Oxford tomorrow. I saw the Minister last night and thanked him for granting my request. He wished me well and assured me that I would find the detention centre very comfortable.
You, Madam Speaker, will understand my concern and mystification when, a few hours ago, I received a message from the Minister's office that his permission had been withdrawn and my visit was considered inappropriate. That was despite the fact that a senior immigration officer had readily agreed to accompany me and had agreed to my request that I should be allowed to view the centre and to speak to the management and to any detainees who wished to talk to me. You will know that some detainees are on hunger strike and others have been dispersed from Oxford to other prisons and detention centres.
As the Home Secretary has consistently refused to make a statement on this matter, and there is no other way—apart from visiting the centre—that hon. Members can ascertain the true facts, I should be grateful if you could bring any pressure to bear on the Home Office to facilitate such visits by hon. Members.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it related to the previous point of order?

Mr. Corbyn: Yes, Madam Speaker. You will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and I have repeatedly raised the issue of Campsfield detention centre and the hunger strike there. You will also recall that I have asked for a debate and for the Minister to receive letters and meet a delegation of hon. Members to discuss what is going on at Campsfield detention centre. You urged me to contact his office, which I have done.
I was astounded when, two hours ago, my office received a phone call followed by a fax from the Minister's office saying that he is not even prepared to meet a delegation of hon. Members to discuss what is going on in Campsfield detention centre, including the operation of the hunger strike and the advice given to the private security company—Group 4—which is in charge of the detention centre.
The only recourse for individual hon. Members who are deeply concerned about the issue is to raise it with you, Madam Speaker, and ask that the Home Secretary is brought to the House to make a statement, or that, by some means, those of us who wish to do so can give the matter a public airing so that what we believe is a growing scandal in the treatment of asylum seekers is heard, debated and discussed in the House and those poor people who fled oppression can gain some form of justice in Britain.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that if a Minister intimidated, or intended to intimidate, hon. Members in the carrying out of their duty, or in any way


prevented them from doing so, that could be construed as a breach of privilege? The actions of Ministers are not excluded from the ordinary remedies available to the House—the High Court of Parliament.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member has raised a hypothetical point, but the two hon. Members who attempted to raise with me what they call a point of order credit me with more influence than I have. I have no influence whatsoever on. Ministers in allowing hon. Members to see various establishments. A point of order should concern a breach of our Standing Orders or procedures. However, there will be opportunities later this week when hon. Members may wish to press those on the Government Front Bench for a debate on this matter, and no doubt they will attempt to do so.

Withdrawal of Medical Treatment

Mr. Gary Waller: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prescribe circumstances in which medical treatment and nutrition can be withdrawn and to secure the continued provision in such circumstances of palliative care; and for connected purposes.
The Bill concerns an extremely sensitive subject, relating as it does to the last great unmentionable—the end which confronts all mankind.
I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating those in another place who recently produced an outstanding report on the complex issue of medical ethics. There is a great deal of good sense in its recommendations, not least in its unanimous rejection of euthanasia, and I hope that it will point the way ahead for many years to come.
I seek to provide the House with an opportunity to reaffirm its opposition to the practice of euthanasia—the intentional killing of a patient by act or omission as part of his or her medical treatment. That practice is, and must remain, illegal. Most of the evidence received by the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics rejected the practice of euthanasia. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing, the National Hospice Council and, indeed, other health care organisations all gave evidence to that effect.
The Medical Ethics Select Committee recognised that the medical, legal and social arguments against euthanasia were particularly strong. Medically, it recognised that advances in palliative care had enabled the pain and distress of terminal illness to be relieved in the vast majority of cases. Legally, it recognised that the prohibition of intentional killing is the cornerstone of the law and social relationships and that that protection must not be diminished in any way. Socially, it recognised that, while there may be individual cases where some may consider euthanasia appropriate, the interests of the individual cannot be separated from those of society.
To legalise euthanasia would result in the vulnerable, the elderly, the lonely, the sick or the distressed feeling pressure—whether real or imagined—to request an early death.
In the face of those arguments, there is a minority who think that euthanasia should be legalised. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society continues mischievously to claim that 79 per cent. of people in this country are in favour of euthanasia, basing that claim on an opinion poll that it commissioned. However, an investigation by the Select Committee revealed that it asked the question:
Would you like medical assistance to a peaceful death?
Few would respond in the negative to such a loaded question.
Recently in a public debate, a leading member of the VES stated that many doctors in the United Kingdom are in favour of euthanasia. In reality, at its last conference, the BMA voted four to one against the legalisation of the practice.
We need to clarify the difficult issues involved in the withdrawal of medical treatment. Decisions about medical treatment and the end of life are more complicated now than they have been in the past. As a result of advances in medical technology, patients live longer and can survive conditions that in the past would have meant a swift end.


While those advances are welcome, they sometimes make it necessary to consider whether initiating a course of treatment will benefit or be a burden to the patient.
The decision can be made more easily in some cases than in others. Where a patient is competent, the decision may be arrived at through discussion between the patient, the relatives and the health care team. I stress that the autonomy of the patient is crucial and if a patient does not want to persist with an aggressive form of treatment, that decision should be respected and treatment withheld or withdrawn. That is good medical practice. It has long been accepted that a doctor does not have to strive officiously to maintain life. The prolongation of life is not the exclusive aim of medical practice, and as the founder of the present-day hospice movement, Dame Cicely Saunders, put it:
doctors are committed to giving appropriate care to their patients, not to every treatment that may be technically possible".
With regard to incompetent patients, or where a patient is confused or unconscious, decisions about treatment withdrawal can be much more complex, for it is difficult to know what such patients' wishes are in the current situation. Advance directives can be helpful in providing guidance about the treatment of such patients, but we should not forget that not all possible situations can be foreseen. No doctor in this country should ever have to face possible legal action because he or she did not, or could not, follow an advance directive to the letter. Such action has taken place in the United States.
If there is no indication of a patient's wishes, decisions must rest with the health care team and the family of the patient. They have to decide whether the treatment to be given is appropriate. That entails an analysis of whether the benefits of treatment will outweigh the burden of the medical procedures.
The House of Lords Select Committee addressed the issue in relation to the case of my constituent Tony Bland, who was tragically left in a vegetative state following the Hillsborough disaster. The Select Committee rightly stated in paragraph 257 of its report:
it might well have been decided long before application was made to the court that treatment with antibiotics was inappropriate, given that recovery from the inevitable complications of infection could add nothing to his well-being as a person.
In short, it would have been perfectly ethical for Tony Bland to be allowed to die long before he did, had the health care professionals involved in his case been advised differently. I take this opportunity to pay my tribute to Tony Bland's parents and to all those people who cared for him towards the end of his life.
The House of Lords Select Committee was divided on one issue: the difficult one of nutrition and hydration. In my view, however, food and water are such vital necessities that their withdrawal from a patient who is not in a terminal state can be intended to have only one outcome—killing that patient. They should only be withdrawn, therefore, from a patient who is approaching death and where their administration would be burdensome. I stress that the report of the Select Committee pointed out that the appropriate handling of a case at an earlier stage would mean that the sort of dilemma that the courts considered last year need never arise.
Thirdly, I endorse the Select Committee's call for the provision of greater resources for palliative care, of the

type provided by the hospice movement to the terminally ill. With almost 200 centres for palliative care in the United Kingdom and with provision for the dissemination of care in hospitals and in the community, so much has been achieved in recent years. In my constituency, the Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice and Ardenlea, which is run by the Marie Curie Memorial Foundation, are two of many whose dedicated work is so highly regarded by Members of Parliament.
Additionally, the Select Committee suggested that research into pain relief and symptom control should be more fully supported. I understand that the Government will soon reply to its report and I hope that there will be a positive response to that and to other valuable suggestions.
The demand for palliative care is such that it should be made more widely available. It need not disturb us if, as a secondary effect of such care, the life of the patient may be shortened. That is the so-called principle of double effect, which was supported and upheld by the Select Committee. If the doctor intends to relieve pain and the treatment given is appropriate to that end, the possible double effect should not be an obstacle to such treatment.
I hope that all those people who are interested in such issues will note and heed the warnings from developments overseas. The British Medical Journal reported last month that the Dutch Attorney-General had ruled that a psychiatrist who helped a physically fit, but depressed 50-year-old woman to commit suicide should not be prosecuted. There is also overwhelming evidence that involuntary euthanasia has become widespread. Such cases show that Holland presents a model of how a slippery slope may become ever steeper.
By supporting the Bill, the House will echo the great majority of the medical profession who oppose euthanasia. The House will support them in the difficult decisions that they must often take not to persist with medical treatment that would be of no benefit to their terminally ill patients. It will also give renewed confidence to the hospices and palliative care teams who see euthanasia as a negation, in every way, of the ethos that underpins their commitment and inspires their work. Our message today should be clear and it must be unmistakable: with the right sort of care, life can be lived to the full to the very end.

Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to oppose the ten-minute Bill motion of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). I have great regard for the hon. Gentleman, but the way in which the Bill has been introduced is ill-conceived.
I support the concept of euthanasia, not because I am oblivious to the significance of human life, but because, if the hon. Member for Keighley were successful and got the Bill on the statute book, it would further restrict the right of an individual to choose. Everyone has the right to maximum dignity in life and indeed, in death. Through his Bill, the hon. Gentleman seeks to endorse the main themes of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics in another place, as he said. By opposing euthanasia in its report, that Committee attacked the rights of those people who wish to leave this life with dignity.
Seneca wrote:
If I can choose between a death of torture and one that is simple and easy, why should I not select the latter? As I choose the ship in which I sail and the house which I inhabit, so will I


choose the death by which I leave life.
Historians will no doubt recall that Seneca was forced to commit suicide.

Mr. Derek Enright: Absolutely.

Mr. Banks: I knew that there would be at least one historian in the House who would remember that.
Those who support euthanasia stress the voluntary nature of the act. It is not compulsory. Nothing in this life is simple and the same is true in death. I accept that multiple moral considerations are involved; doctors and close relatives can find themselves facing terrible dilemmas. However, the right of an individual to choose must arch across those difficulties.
The hon. Member for Keighley mentioned the withdrawal of medical treatment. The medical profession makes considerable use of what may be described as passive euthanasia. A doctor can exercise many decisions—such as not resuscitating a patient after a heart attack, not administering antibiotics to treat pneumonia or other infections mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and not inserting artificial feeding tubes through the nose or direct into the stomach. All are examples of passive euthanasia, and they are extensively discussed by the medical profession—if only because advances in medical science allow doctors to prolong the dying process.
Compassionate doctors are often caught between the suffering of their patients and their duty, as they see it, to prolong life. If a doctor does not treat a life-threatening condition in an already sick patient, the doctor makes the choice on the patient's behalf. I see that as a form of medical paternalism—the Idea that doctor always knows best. The British Medical Association clearly states that the power to decide rests with patients. A report in the British Medical Journal in December 1991 deplored the lack of guidelines for non-resuscitation orders in hospitals. Regrettably, in far too many cases the wishes of the patient are never even sought, never mind taken into consideration.
Under British law, competent adults have the right to refuse any or all medical treatment. That right is often invoked by people who want to die with dignity, at a time of their own choosing.
The hon. Member for Keighley spoke of a patient becoming incompetent or unconscious of what is happening, or being unable to communicate clearly. In such a situation, doctors cannot know a patient's wishes. Would they welcome a non-treatment decision or the intrusive and sometimes violent treatment necessary to sustain life?
The hon. Gentleman touched on, but moved quickly away from, the usefulness of advance directives—or living wills, as they are known. Right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt be delighted to know that it is not my intention to pop my clogs just yet, but my wife and I have signed living wills because we believe them to be important. The individual merely states on the advance directive the sort of life-prolonging treatment that he or she does not want if they suffer in future from an incurable disease causing unbearable suffering.
A directive also provides for the event of a brain-damaging accident requiring life support systems to

maintain a vegetative patient, and the option to have one's life terminated. A directive does not ask a doctor to do anything illegal, such as actively terminate life, but only requests that artificial, aggressive or extraordinary means —all medical terms—are not used to prolong the dying process.
In 1992, the BMA gave full support to advance directives, stating that patients' wishes must not be overridden and that doctors must not impose their own views of beneficial treatment on others.
The legal status of an advance directive has never been tested in a British court, although statements made in the Court of Appeal and by Law Lords in the Tony Bland case indicated that an advance directive is binding. The hon. Member for Keighley said that Tony Bland could have been allowed to die earlier if the correct advice had been given, but that was not the situation. Tony Bland's parents were forced to go through the whole process of the law to do, as caring parents, what was in their son's best interests. Despite the obstacles that they met, their noble stand was supported by the majority of the people of this country. If Tony Bland had signed an advance directive, his parents would have been spared all that grief and heartbreak.
In the United States of America, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and some Australian states, living wills are fully recognised. Also, a number of countries recognise durable powers of attorney in health matters—something that this country should recognise.
The hon. Gentleman placed great emphasis on the ability of palliative hospice care in keeping patients free from pain. We all acknowledge that hospices do wonderful work, but it is not true that palliative care removes all pain and distress in all patients. I know that is so because my father died of cancer. I do not see a contradiction between offering palliative hospice care and making voluntary euthanasia an option. They should both be included in the range of options available at the end of life. Apart from the unfortunate minority who cannot be kept comfortable, many people simply do not want the slow way of dying that hospices offer.
I have great feeling and warmth for the hon. Member for Keighley, but because I believe that euthanasia is a right —the right to live one's life in dignity and to leave one's life in dignity, I must oppose his motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gary Waller, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Dame Angela Rumbold, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Rev. Martin Smyth and Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours

WITHDRAWAL OF MEDICAL TREATMENT

Mr. Gary Waller accordingly presented a Bill to prescribe circumstances in which medical treatment and nutrition can be withdrawn and to secure the continued provision in such circumstances of palliative care; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 May, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 9

EXPLOITATION RIGHTS: OIL AND GAS

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 8, line 40, leave out from 'it' to end of line 44 and insert
'at the time of its being brought from the strata to the surface or, as the case may be, of its treatment in the strata; or'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Clause 10

PROTECTION FOR CERTAIN INTERESTS IN COAL AND COAL MINES

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 9, line 37, after 'acquired' insert '—(a)'.

No. 46, in page 9, line 38, at end insert
'; or
(b) under section 1 or 2 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (prescriptive possession on ex facie valid deed).'.
No. 47, in page 10, line 1, after 'above' insert
', in their application to England and Wales,'.
No. 48, in page 10, line 5, at end insert—
'() Subsection (3) above, in its application to Scotland, shall not restrict the acquisition, as mentioned in that subsection—

(a) of any such servitude as adversely affects any coal or coal mine to which this section applies; or
(b) of any other right so affecting (but not adverse to the title in) such coal or coal mine.'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Clause 11

RESTRUCTURING OF THE CORPORATION'S FUNCTIONS

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 11, line 49, at end add—
`(10) The Secretary of State shall direct the Corporation to ensure that no coal mine shall cease production until the Coal Authority is established and able to invite applications for licences for these mines under section 26 of this Act.
(11) The Secretary of State shall not perform the functions of the Coal Authority under subsection (10) above.
(12) Where it is agreed that coal production is no longer possible, the Corporation may carry out its duty under subsection (10) above by operating on a care and maintenance basis only.'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in clause 66, page 63, line 37, at end insert—
'(aa) section 11(10) to (12).'

Mr. Cook: The purpose of amendment No. 1 is simple: to ensure that there are no more closures before privatisation and that we have a truce in the closure programme, which has already given rise to too many casualties and too many human victims. It asks that there should be no more casualties in the few remaining months for which Ministers of the Crown remain responsible for an industry that is still in the public sector.
As well as being a simple amendment, it is charitable, because it takes Ministers at their word. It accepts the

lavish promises that have been made that privatisation will be good for the coal industry and that pits will prosper under privatisation. [Interruption.] I see that on this point I carry the Minister with me. If he is so confident that pits will prosper under privatisation, what, then, is his problem in keeping open until that moment at least those that remain?
That will be a lot easier for him to do than it was at the time of Second Reading, because there are now fewer pits than there were when we discussed the Bill on Second Reading. Twenty-two were open then; there are now 17. What, therefore, will stop him saying that those 17 pits can remain in operation until privatisation? I hope that he is not planning another round of closures, which would prevent him from accepting this amendment.
I mention that because I notice that it was reported in the Financial Times last week that another two or three pits will close next month after the review meetings that have been convened to consider the collieries that are open. The report even names the five pits on the short list for closure: Bilsthorpe in Nottingham; Tower and Point of Ayr in Wales, which would mean that there will be no colliery left operating in Wales; Prince of Wales and Kiveton in Yorkshire. Those pits are at the heart of the amendment. Their fate will be decided next month at those review meetings. If the amendment is agreed to, those pits will go forward to take their chance after privatisation. If it is voted down, they may well be closed.
Those pits demonstrate the extent to which we are now closing pits that are financially viable and make economic sense. Point of Ayr is now producing coal at £1.14 per gigajoule. When the Government carried out the coal review they instructed Boyds to review pits that might be closed, and Boyds set targets in terms of cost per gigajoule for every pit for 1995. The figure currently achieved by Point of Ayr is below the figure that Boyds set it for 1995. Already, over a year in advance, it is below the target figure. Bilsthorpe is below the target figure, too, and Kiveton is not only below it but well below. Kiveton colliery is now producing coal at £1.38 per gigajoule, well below the target of £1.53 by 1995 set by Boyds.
Some of the most efficient pits in Europe, producing the cheapest fuel in Britain, which will give consumers the cheapest electricity, are at risk of closure. In a rational world, it should not be necessary for us to come to the House of Commons to move amendments to keep those pits open—but we are not talking about a rational decision. We can see that by considering the pits that have been closed since Second Reading.
Five pits have closed since the House started proceedings on the Bill in January. One of them, Manton, produces coal at £1 per gigajoule—cheaper than most imports and cheaper than the coal produced by most pits in this country. When Boyds carried out the review for the coal White Paper it reckoned that Manton was the eighth most profitable pit in Britain, with a potential profit margin of 20 per cent. We have just closed one of the most efficient pits in the coal industry. How can the Minister possibly defend that?

Mr. Joseph Ashton: My hon. Friend mentioned Manton in my constituency, and everything that he said is true. Is there not also a cloak over the proceedings when people close a pit by saying that it will be amalgamated with another pit, or by two-thirds closing it by cutting three faces down to one, as happened at


Harworth, in my constituency? That means that men who go for redundancy get £10,000 less because there is no actual pit closure, although some of the faces have closed. The whole process is filled with deception.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend touches on a clear case of deception—a proposal for the merger of pits. Such proposals are transparently proposals for a closure of one of the two merged pits. I suspect that the only reason that British Coal is operating by merger rather than by closure is that with "mergers" it does not need to offer the pit concerned for market testing, for private sector operators to come forward to take it over. That is a device to ensure not only that pits close but that they stay closed.
I was asking how the Minister could defend those actions. The reality, as he knows, is that he cannot defend them. I suspect that he will not even try. I know that he cannot because I have here the minutes of the British Coal privatisation project co-ordination group meeting on 14 February, at which the Minister had four representatives. The meeting took place the week after Manton was closed, and a Mr. Peter Jones, a merchant banker, was minuted as having repeated concerns:
that cost projections"—
for privatisation—
would re-open debate about the reasons for closure of particular collieries".
In other words, if the cost projections on privatisation were revealed, they would expose the fact that the pits that have been closed were just as cheap as those being kept for privatisation—in the case of Manton, probably even cheaper. I must say that, if a merchant banker cannot make the figures fit his case, they must be pretty robust figures. If Ministers are prepared to close pits when the case is so good that they dare not reveal the figures, it underlines the case for the House to pass the amendment to ensure that Ministers do not close any more.
I am told that those cost projections to which Mr. Jones refers arise from another Boyds' study. Boyds is currently making cost projections of the cost of pits under privatisation. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that; perhaps he could deny it. He would unwise to seek to deny it, because I have one of those cost projections with me. It is the first cost projection for Longannet and is dated 2 March.
That cost projection of the likely cost of coal in the pits after privatisation goes to the heart of our debate on the Bill. What is fascinating about Boyds' conclusion about the cost projections after privatisation is that it shows that the cost of coal will go up, not down. The Minister need not look so surprised. The paper has been already circulated to the DTI coal privatisation unit. He will have some difficulty denying that that paper exists and some difficulty
The Minister will be aware of the assumptions on which the calculation is based, which are revealing. I see that the paper was addressed to Nicola Kirkup. I do not know whether we have a Nicola Kirkup in the House, but I am sure that she can brief hon. Members on what she has read in that document. The assumptions show that, after privatisation, redundancy payments are expected to tumble to £5,000 per head—about a quarter of the present level under British Coal. That is relevant, because another assumption in the document is that 150 workers at Longannet will be sacked on privatisation of that pit.
Despite those savings and costs, the reduced redundancy payments and the reduced number of staff, the total operating costs rise because of the increase in pension

contributions for a new pension scheme and the increased insurance premiums which are necessary from a private owner. Boyds concludes:
Overall operating cash costs actually increase under private ownership from £1.32 per gigajoule to £1.34 per gigajoule.
That is occurring at a pit which, over the past decade of public ownership, has dramatically reduced those costs. For the first time in 10 years, it is faced with an increase in its operating costs because of privatisation. How can Ministers possibly continue to defend the privatisation proposal when they have been told that it will put up the price of coal?
There is another problem for the Ministers—how can they sell the pits? Boyds concludes its assessment with the following observation:
This cost assessment will be a major disincentive to buyers, who will point out cost increases despite aggressive improvements in performance.
The question that Ministers must answer is, how can they square their wish to privatise coal with the fact that, plainly, they will have difficulty selling that idea to the market? In a sane House of Commons, they would find it impossible to sell those figures to hon. Members. I suspect that when they answer they will not try. The Ministers know that any figures are irrelevant to the Bill.
Privatisation has nothing to do with whether it pushes up the price of coal or cuts off access to our coal reserves. There was no economic case for the closure programme. That programme shuts down access to fuel which provides us with the cheapest electricity. There was no financial case for privatisation. The Government will never get much money for the pits and will receive even less when the word gets out that it will be more expensive to operate the pits. There is no social case for privatisation. As my hon. Friends forcefully expressed yesterday, no private coal company can boast the safety record of British Coal. Why put that safety record at risk with privatisation? The reason is that the Bill is not motivated by finance or by economics or by social argument, but by the vindictive prejudice of the Government against the coal industry.
That is what the Bill is about. That is why I suspect that the Minister will refuse to accept the amendment and give even a temporary reprieve to the coal industry. That is why the Bill will be remembered as the low tide of privatisation. It is a measure which we always knew was strategically inept and politically vindictive, and we now know—thanks to Boyds—that it is also financially bankrupt.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall be brief. There are three enormities about the Bill: the enormity of the cost to the public purse, the enormity of the challenge to the communities that are affected and the enormity of the Government's idiocy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, the Government have produced a Bill which is bred from dogma and out of malice. With breeding of that sort, what sort of colt will be produced?
The national interest is not being served. We will generate dependency within a relatively short time. The Government have connived with Hobart house to have a small number of profitable pits which will not be able to meet Britain's requirements for coal within a short time. Given the Government's responsibilities to the nation as well as to mining areas, the least they could do is ensure that a sufficient number of collieries remain to meet


Britain's needs, which may well become acute if the Government's calculations are wrong and the price of gas rises faster than they feared.
Indeed, as we reach the late 1990s, the Government will be extremely fearful in case the world gas price rises. I know that the Minister does not pay any attention to us. The Under-Secretary of State for Technology and the Minister for Energy are sitting there chatting while they care not at all about the national interest.
A short while ago, I was in Germany meeting a German local authority in the Ruhr coalfield. When I talked to the miners there, they grumbled a little because they got only three years' notice of a colliery being closed. Some of us had less than three weeks. Some of us have seen profitable collieries such as Silverwood in my constituency doomed soon after the brilliant men of Hobart house approved millions of pounds of expenditure, which simply stopped before Christmas and before the coal face that was being developed could begin to turn coal.
We have had enough stupidity, we have had enough dogma and we have had enough malice. It is time that the Government reconsidered the matter and accepted the amendment—in the national interest.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Miners in Nottinghamshire and throughout the country will see the amendment as a touchstone of the Government's commitment to the coal industry in Nottinghamshire. If the Government accept the amendment, at least it will give Nottinghamshire miners some hope. They need it, because they believe that the promises made to them first by Lady Thatcher's Government and then by this Government only last March have been betrayed. They believe that the Government have turned their back on them and simply walked away.
If the amendment is carried, mines could stay open a little longer. People in Nottinghamshire want that commitment. They remember that, on Second Reading, Ollerton and Manton were still open; both are closed now. The way in which those pits were closed was despicable. British Coal, backed by the Government, filled the miners' mouths with gold. It behaved in an ignorant and arrogant way; it showed no sense and no sensibility and it showed contempt for the miners and their families. It put an extra £10,000 in redundancy money on the table and told the miners at Ollerton and Manton to take the money by Friday, or they would lose it.
I was interested to see that, when the pit ponies came out of Ellington colliery only a few weeks ago, British Coal said that they would be looked after for the rest of their lives. Would it not be fine if miners who are thrown out of employment in Nottinghamshire daily received that sort of assurance from the Government?
As well as filling miners' mouths with gold, they have now filled the pit shafts at Ollerton and Manton, and there is no prospect of those collieries reopening. Those profitable pits have closed, and the jobs have gone for ever. Perhaps the Minister will come clean this afternoon and confirm that further closures are imminent. Perhaps he will say that British Coal has already decided which pits are to close before 30 April. Perhaps he will say whether he has been consulted on that point.
I am told, and I know it to be the case, that decisions have been made about a further round of closures, and that all we are waiting for is ministerial consent.

Mr. Jack Thompson: I suspect that my hon. Friend believes, as I do, that there is something behind this in terms of the board of British Coal. To my knowledge, only one member of the board has said that he is neither involved nor interested in management buy-outs.
I feel that the management will try to get involved in the little group of collieries which will be left after privatisation. They will have a virtual monopoly in providing coal to the electrical generating industry, for instance. If that is the case, it is an example of absolute corruption.

Mr. Tipping: It is clear that there has been collusion between the Government and their supporters to define the market for coal. The level of that market will be 30 million tonnes, and it is clear that the British Coal managers have moved the number of collieries down to a level which will produce that amount. The pits currently in operation are producing 30 million tonnes of coal.
It is also clear that managers, senior managers and maybe board members within British Coal are looking at the prospects for a buy-out. It is no wonder that men who have worked in and given everything to the industry view those managers with suspicion and hostility. They know that those managers are backed by the Government, and that there is a master plan at Hobart house and at the Department of Trade and Industry for pits that are to be closed during the next few weeks.
It would be surprising—or perhaps not—if those announcements were made while Parliament was in recess for Easter. It would not be the first time that that has happened. Christmas holidays have been disasters for miners and for their families, and Easter holidays for many of them look dim and hostile.
The Government ought to come clean, and say whether they know which pits are to close before 30 April, when the present redundancy scheme ends. I suspect that there will be more bribery and corruption. Money will be put on the table to miners and they will be told to take or leave the extra £10,000, or they will have lost not just their jobs, but the extra money.
That is a fine way to treat miners at Bilsthorpe colliery, where there was a disaster last year. That disaster put the colliery's production back, but the miners worked hard and are now achieving their targets. They are on the rack. They believe that they have done everything that has been asked of them, and more. They want a clear commitment about whether they will survive the next round of closures.
The Government ought to show some faith with the miners. They ought to say clearly today that there are to be no more closures, or, if closures are conceived, that they be left in the distance until the new Coal Authority is in place.
The Government owe the mining industry. The miners in Nottinghamshire and throughout the country have done everything that has been been asked of them and more. They have increased productivity by 150 per cent. in recent years, and are producing coal at half the cost of coal from Germany. People all over Europe believe that we are crazy to close our mining industry.
Even at this late stage, the Government should show some compassion and sense, and accept the amendment. It


is a small amendment, and a small step forward. It is at least a touchstone of faith for the miners of Nottinghamshire and throughout the country, who feel that they have been betrayed.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friends and I entirely support the amendment. As the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) knows, we have added our names to it to show that.
The amendment makes two key points. The first is that, in any event and whatever the long-term plan might be, there is no excuse for not undertaking care and maintenance, even if mining is to stop, or for not holding the position pending the Coal Authority coming into operation and people bidding for licences and coming along to say that they are willing to take over a pit. It would be unacceptable to allow pits that are operating today to be lost between now and the end of the life of British Coal and the creation of the Coal Authority.
The second point is that we do not trust the Government. The point has been made on behalf of the industry over and over again. The industry does not trust the Government to look after its interests. It has already been made clear in speeches from these Benches that the industry does not trust British Coal to look after its interests, because it believes that British Coal is thinking about something else. It believes that British Coal is thinking about its own interests and the future interests of the people who work for British Coal, following the enactment of the legislation. That is a classic conflict of interest.
The amendment seeks to protect the industry and the current workers against the conflict of interest in the management of British Coal. Certain examples suggest how right we are to be suspicious.
It is not accidental that pits which stopped operation last year are being reopened by British Coal this year. In the past few weeks, British Coal has announced that it will put £9 million into restarting production at Maltby. Maltby happens to be near Rotherham. I do not think that it is coincidental that the announcement has been made in the past few weeks, given that a by-election is coming up in Rotherham.

Mr. David Hanson: The Conservatives will not win it.

Mr. Hughes: Of course the Government will not win. Not only will they not win, but they will be lucky to save their deposit. I did not mean that there was any great political benefit in reopening Maltby.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: The Liberal Democrats might even beat them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member says that we too may beat the Conservatives. Indeed, we have good prospects of beating them in Rotherham and in all the other Labour-held seats where by-elections are to be held. So there will be no political gain for the Government.

Mr. Alan Duncan: That undermines the hon. Member's argument that this is done for political gain.

Mr. Hughes: No, it does not. The Government are standing by while British Coal plays games with the industry in the very shortest of short terms. It is self-evident that some of the pits that are currently closed

have been the subject of interest from operators and are potentially perfectly viable. We know that people can make a go of those pits.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friends will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and me make relevant comments about the matter. British Coal intends to de-mothball Maltby but close Silverwood in my constituency. It will transfer men from Silverwood to Maltby, having got rid of most of the Maltby men first.
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the one thing that Hobart house should have been worried about was to keep Maltby going immediately after completing £190 million of capital investment? The price that British Coal would have had to pay for taking Maltby into the core group it wants to set up might well have been rather higher than it wished to pay.

Mr. Hughes: I agree. That touches on exactly the debate that we had last night, on mine water. Many unspecified liabilities have not yet been sorted out. As we have seen many times, the Government are forcing through the rush to sell off not the family silver or the Government's silver, but the nation's black silver, because they know that that is the only way in which they will be able to persuade buyers to make bids for some of the pits without knowing what the potential liability will be. That action is highly irresponsible, because it does not give any protection either to the people who are working in the pits at present or to the public at large.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): At the beginning of his speech, did the hon. Gentleman say that, of the closures which are deemed necessary, if a closure does take place that colliery should be kept on a care and maintenance basis until such time as privatisation has taken place in full?

Mr. Hughes: I simply repeated the points of view that are formally expressed in this amendment. It makes two points very clearly—the Minister must have been briefed on how to respond to them.
First, the third paragraph of the amendment says that, where coal production is no longer possible, the corporation should operate on a care and maintenance basis. Secondly, it says that the Secretary of State should direct the corporation to ensure that no production in any of the pits ceases until the new authority is up and running. It is a twin argument, and we argue in this way because we do not trust management to make decisions about the pits operating currently which are not compromised by the interests of the current managers.
The risk is that pits will be closed, with a subsequent loss of jobs.We know about the potential unemployment, and we know how that will damage communities. We have rehearsed those arguments, and the Minister knows about the devastation that pit closures cause in communities where the mine is often the only major employer.
In almost every case, the consequence of decisions to close pits means either that pits will never reopen—which means the loss indefinitely of what could be a perfectly good pit—or that pits will be closed, with the risk that licences will be taken out by people who have not addressed or picked up full responsibility for health and safety, environmental liabilities and other matters dealt with by other amendments on Report.
The United Kingdom has some of the best coal in Europe, if not the world. The nation cannot afford to allow British Coal to make further announcements after the Bill has gone through the Parliament, and say, "Right, now that we know we are not going to run into political flak, we are basically free to make unaccountable decisions without having to justify them."
Seventeen is a small number of pits. If British Coal were determined not only to try to secure sales to the electricity generating industry, but to do what Mr. Neil Clarke said in a press release a couple of weeks ago and maximise sales in all other areas of life where there is a prospective market for coal, there is absolutely no reason why the amount of coal currently being produced from 17 pits cannot be sustained until this legislation passes through both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Returning to the question of care and maintenance, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and I have had meetings with British Coal about Ellington colliery, and we still cannot get clarification about care and maintenance. By definition, that suggests keeping up the roof in the mine, making regulations work properly in the mine, and making sure water is contained within the mine—the safety aspects.
But I want clarification about the maintenance and care of production machinery. If the mine is to operate and produce coal, the production machinery must be maintained. It is my experience in the industry that there is a problem in a mine after three weeks' holiday, never mind after three months' closure.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman speaks from great experience in the industry, and I bow to that experience. Even people like me, who have only been down pits, as opposed to those who work in them, understand very clearly that, once the coal mining operation is stopped, there is a huge capital cost, even if it is possible to get the pit working again.
I know for a fact that the right hon. Member and the hon. Gentleman were led to believe that the Ellington pit would survive, and then, about one month ago, learned, with two days' notice, that it was going to close. I think my recollection is correct—the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed may correct me. The decision changed in a very short time.
There was no long lead time or any indication that Ellington was going to be closed. It was said to be secure, as were many of the pits which have closed since Second Reading. In October last year, we were told by the President of the Board of Trade that these were guaranteed core pits, but they have been closed.
The political reality is that we have two options left: we can protect the industry, rundown though it is and producing minimal amounts of coal with maximum efficiency and productivity but with the best possible performance indicators, or we effectively sign up to a minimalist coal industry with 13, 14 or 15 pits, which is what the Rothschild report promised us.
4.30 pm
This issue does not affect only the mining communities, although it may affect them principally. Let the House and the Government be in no doubt that the fact that there is no demonstration of 100,000 people on the streets of

Westminster today does not mean that all the communities of Britain—from places as different as Cheltenham and Chelsea, which are unlikely supporters of the coal industry but which were forced to oppose the Government, and urban areas such as mine, which has not had a pit within 60 miles of it since there were pits in the Kent coalfield—do not feel just as strongly as the mining communities. The country is telling the Government that they have one last chance to exercise some authority.
It was the Government's idea to sell the coal industry, and it is they who are forcing the pace. If they wanted to do so, the Government could freeze the position to ensure that we have a coal industry able to compete in the international markets in future.
If the Minister says that he is sorry, but that the Government are going to leave it to Neil Clarke and British Coal, he will be allowing a conflict of interest to determine the national interest. That is entirely irresponsible and unhelpful to all those who have worked for decades and generations to earn our coal industry its reputation as one of the greatest in the world. Yes, the Government can sell the Tory party silver, but not the remainder of the nation's silver.
I hope that the Minister will accept that the amendment is not merely a token gesture on behalf of Opposition Members but a reflection of the opinions of people outside. We cannot afford to run down our coal industry any further. It is no good the Government saying that they are washing their hands of it and it is going into the private sector—it is not in the private sector today. It is still a national responsibility, and the Government must accept that responsibility and the duty to protect the coal industry to the utmost for the future.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: The amendment reflects the great lack of confidence in British Coal felt by many of those who work down the mines. I believe that the whole of the work force lack confidence in what British Coal is going to do. They are incensed that viable mines could be closed in the next few weeks. The lessons that we learned last year provide us with good examples in that some of the mines that were closed because British Coal said that they were not viable are now coaling again. They are open again only because they are in the private sector, but they have markets for their coal. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will think about that.
It is fairly obvious to those of us who have perhaps studied the industry only in the past 18 months that, although British Coal said repeatedly that it had only two customers, the rest of the United Kingdom knew that there were far more than two customers, in this country and even beyond, who were willing to buy British coal.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) referred to the speed with which the pits have been closed. He should perhaps compare it with what happened a few months ago, when he and I were talking about constituency boundaries being changed.
It is marvellous that, when the jobs of Members of Parliament are at stake, we hold an inquiry lasting several months. Everyone is allowed to state his views, which go before an independent assessor. This all takes several months, another solution is suggested and hon. Members can use a Queen's counsel to make their case. That is quite


right; I am not condemning the process, because such changes are important arid should be handled properly. However, when it comes to miners' jobs, it is a finger-snapping exercise.
When an industry, factory, firm or shop is in trouble, a liquidator or receiver is called in. The first thing he does is try to keep the business going. He asks people who have not received their money or whose debts have not been paid, "Will you hold off? Will you not make the factory or the industry or the shop bankrupt? Please don't demand your money just now. Let's try to keep it going as a going concern and try to find a buyer." That has happened in the case of football clubs that are in terrible trouble, big stores that are involved in a merger or amalgamated, supermarkets that have joined up, or big companies such as Rover and BMW.
Surely it is the Conservative attitude that a business should be kept alive until a buyer is found, as any business man in the country would say. That has happened time and again with engineering companies, and with practically everything in the commercial market, but not with pits.
For some reason, there is underhand deception. A few months ago, the Government promised, as they did with regard to my constituency, that certain coal mines were core pits which would be there virtually for ever—places such as Manton, Welbeck and Harworth. They promised that, even if the number of pits got down to single figures, those pits would still operate. The men were assured of that. Suddenly, one night, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood said, usually in the recess, when we cannot raise the matter in Parliament, the rug is pulled away from under them.
If ever a body of men have been deceived by the Government, it has to be the miners, with their promise of productivity. For years they were told, "Increase production; increase your productivity; turn out more; work faster; work harder; adopt all the new methods; adopt every piece of modern machinery; work shifts; work overtime and get the prices down." What was the result? The sack. Yet they wonder why, in all the years when I was a lad on the shop floor, miners used to say to me, "Go slow, lad; there is a whole day tomorrow not started on. You'll be working yourself out of a job."
Shop stewards advocated restrictive practices, about which the Conservatives screamed blue murder every time that the trade unions dug in their heels and said, "We're protecting our jobs." The people who shouted the loudest said, "You're destroying British industry." After the miners' strike, what happened? The miners did everything the Government told them to do—work harder, accept new practices, not stand in the way of modern investment and machinery. They did everything.
The Minister knows, because he is an ex-miner. That is the tragedy—an ex-miner shutting down his own industry. He ought to consider asking for another job. He understands what has happened. The reward of those miners has been the sack, in an underhand, indecent way. To prevent the miners from striking, to prevent them from protesting, to prevent them from saying, "Hold on a bit; there's a buyer for the pit," they were told, "If you sign the docket by next Friday, you will get £10,000 extra redundancy pay." Who could resist a bribe such as that?
Some of those miners think that they are getting something. They are getting nothing. I will tell the Minister what redundancy pay is. It is advance unemployment benefit; advance social security; advance supplementary

benefit—call it what you like. That lump sum of 25,000 quid, or whatever, means that ex-miners cannot qualify for rent rebate, or for anything else that unemployed people get, until they have dwindled down and dwindled down their redundancy pay.
They have taken their benefits in advance and saved the Government a great many of the pay-outs that they would have had to make on income support and other benefits. They know it. Accountants have carefully worked out the costs of 10 years' unemployment with redundancy pay, compared with 10 years' weekly benefit.
There are people in my constituency who took redundancy, unwillingly—they were perhaps 48 or 50 years old—after the miners' strike. They thought that, as they had £90 a week—which was not inflation-proof—they would be able to exist for the rest of their life. Now they find that they cannot, because things wear out. Their car has worn out, and it is gone. The television is worn out. They are trying to make do with the clothes they wore 10 years ago. They tried to exist by scratching and scraping.
When interest rates fall, all Conservative Members cheer, but lower interest rates mean a smaller return on money in the bank, so redundancy compensation becomes worth less and less. Many people are now living in a state of deep poverty, having followed the advice of the Tory Government. Is it any wonder that the general election results in Nottinghamshire amounted to such a landslide?
After the miners' strike, the Conservative party promised the Union of Democratic Miners everything. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood won his seat from a UDM supporter, and two more seats in Nottingham came to Labour. In fact, my party secured the biggest swing to have been seen in very many years. People know how they have been betrayed.
My constituency has three big power stations. There is no doubt that the steam they produce results in acid rain over Europe. After all, they are 30-odd years old. But they could be modernised. Thousands of people could be provided with work at High Marnham, Cottam and West Burton, and, even with continued coal burning, the acid rain could be stopped.
That course would be much cheaper than the provision of gas-fired power stations, the payment of unemployment and other benefits and the decimation of areas. However, the Government's hatred of the mining industry is such that they refuse to take such action. They would sooner introduce gas-fired power stations employing 35 people and using the resources of the North sea for the sake of their own dogma. How often have they criticised us for dogma? They used to accuse us of being doctrinaire, of never being prepared to bend. In respect of this matter, their hatred of mining areas, and of working-class people in particular, is clear.
Ministers are still engaging in deception. They repeatedly denied that they intended to close two of the three faces in Harworth. Two weeks later, 300 people were made redundant. A hard-hitting, high-powered, high-production, low-cost pit has been swallowed despite the Government's promises.
We have heard that Manton produces coal at just over £1 a gigajoule. It is probably second or third in the league table of the eight or nine pits in the midlands, on practically every ground—productivity, cost of production, and so on. With the snap of a finger, it was announced that it was to


be not closed but merged with Welbeck, which is seven miles away. Now that it has been merged, everything is shut.
Despite the padlocks and the blocking of the top, this is described as a merger. How can it be described as a merger? The mine with which it has been merged is in the Mansfield travel-to-work area, which is a development area, whereas my area has only assisted area status. But juggling the statistics makes the figures look better. And that is all that miners are—statistics. They are statistics in a table set out by people who have the cheek to try to tell us what is best for the industry.
There is no reason why the amendment should not be accepted. It simply says that final closure should not take place until the British Coal Authority has been set up. What is wrong with that? No other industry going through major upheaval—mergers, takeover bids, amalgamations —would dream of shutting down a branch in these circumstances. If Marks and Spencer decided to build a bigger store at Meadowhall in Sheffield, one would expect some discussion or consultation. In fact, Marks and Spencer has not behaved as badly as the pit owners.
But no one else would act like British Coal. Anyone else would talk. Let the Government accept the amendment, and let British Coal talk to the men for a change, instead of being told by the Government exactly what to do.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I have listened to Ministers' attempts to argue the case for the privatisation of coal, but I have heard no logic or common sense and no economic grounds. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) that, even with a scrubbing brush, one could not get Ministers to come clean. To close pits is, in effect, to sterilise areas. The amendment seeks to ensure that there will at least be a moratorium until such time as privatisation takes place—in other words, a pit will be a working pit or a pit in mothballs. British Coal does not come clean in relation to the future of the industry. It has not done so in the past, and I cannot see it doing so in the future.
Yorkshire has lost approximately 47,000 jobs, excluding those not in but associated with the industry. It is important that the taxpayer be given some consideration. After all, it is he who has to meet this enormous cost. At the Rossington pit, British Coal attempted to remove machinery to make the operation non-viable for any future purchaser.
In 1993 approximately 18.5 million tonnes of coal was imported into Britain. The Minister for Energy has refused to tell us who imports this coal, saying that it is a confidential matter. British Coal imports the coal; why the hell does not the Minister come clean? In terms of the balance of trade, what is happening is costing the country £687 million.
Neil Clarke was appointed chairman of British Coal to look after the industry. I have yet to see Neil Clarke do a day's work to earn his salary. It is the easiest thing in the world to stand back, do nothing and watch an industry collapse. But the Minister seems to be quite content with the situation. According to this week's "Westminster Brief', Neil Clarke intends to pursue every possible tonne of coal. Is that a reference to the 18.5 million tonnes of coal

being imported? I am at a loss to understand how Budge and Edwards can take over pits and proceed to make profits. If Budge and Edwards can do it, why cannot Neil Clarke—this captain of industry whom the Government appointed and who has created so much misery throughout the coalfields of the country?
It is regrettable that the Minister is prepared to proceed and, possibly, connive with the chairman of British Coal. They are using collusion and secrecy to con Conservative Members into supporting pit closures. They take the heat out of the situation in the hope that, in three months' time, other issues will occupy people's minds. I hope that, at this late stage, the Minister will support our reasonable amendment, which is an attempt to inject some sanity into the action that is being taken against the coal mining industry.

Mr. Eric Clarke: We find ourselves in a pitiful position. We are asking for a moratorium—a reasonable moratorium, based on common sense. I keep using that phrase, because when we debate the coal industry logic goes out of the window.
One of the Government's arguments is, "We are depending on British Coal officials." That is like the police asking for guidance from the mafia: it is nonsense. Those officials have got incompetence down to a fine art. They are hatchet men, determined to carry out the Government's wishes. The Government say that they are depending on them. Depending on them to do what? I could give example after example of the incompetence that they have shown over many years.
We are becoming a bit cynical. There have been closures in several areas, and various proposals have been advanced. We have seen a number of slogans: "We are streamlining the industry" was a good one, which hon. Members may remember. Headlines above so-called articles refer to "concentrating our assets", "concentrating on the main coalfields, not the peripheral ones", "transferring miners to a long-term future", and "an amalgamation of production units." The "peripheral" coalfields were in Scotland, Kent, the north-east and north-west, Durham, Northumberland and Wales. In those areas, the shock is over; despair and cynicism have set in.
The Government have promised to help. They have promised alternative employment, and they have promised RECHAR money. We have had some of that money, but some was not brought in because it was "additionality money". The Government were supposed to match the European Community pound for pound. The Irish Government seem to be very good in that respect, as are other EC Governments, but our Government are not. Money that could be spent on environmental and other coalfield improvements is going begging because the Government are not putting their money where their mouth is.
The Government speak of retaining assets. Retaining them for what? That is what is causing the cynicism. We had a boom and bust situation. I do not only blame the current Government; over the years, I have frequently lobbied other Governments of all persuasions who had fallen for this Coal Board nonsense of running down the industry while other countries expand theirs.
Assets should not be sold at the last minute because people are feathering their nests. Those people have a vested interest in the outcome of privatisation, and many of them are currently in charge of British Coal. I do not think


it helps to remove plant and machinery in which investment—capital or otherwise—has been made. These are the finest collieries in Europe; indeed, they are the finest production units in the world. Yet, for some reason, deep mines are being destroyed. I think that those people's motivation is reluctance to allow a large industry to compete with the coal industry that they expect to inherit and run in the future.
I issue a plea on behalf of those in coalfield communities. We in Scotland have a mothballed colliery, Francis; we do not want it to be closed, and we do not want any of the other mines—Longannet, for instance—to be cut or otherwise affected.
I speak with some emotion, because people in my area, and in other mining communities, are at a low ebb as they try to work out what is happening to their industry. I plead with the Government to try to retain at least our existing assets, even at this eleventh hour before privatisation.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Ellington colliery, in my constituency, is experiencing precisely the circumstances to which the amendment refers. It provides something of an object lesson.
First, we must ask, "Why the timing?" Just 'when Ellington was being actively considered for purchase, or licensing, by a number of outside interests—and British Coal had suggested a basis on which it would continue to operate for many years—we were suddenly confronted with a closure announcement. What possible justification or explanation can there be for that timing? Such action is completely alien to what would be done in the case of any other industry with an asset in which outside purchasers were interested: the aim, surely, would be to promote that asset, rather than destroying it and rendering it unusable in the future.
While that was going on, men were being told to go on to contract, because that would help to keep the pit lean and fit while safeguarding their jobs. In the end, it meant that they received less redundancy money than they would have received if they had remained in British Coal's work force. No concession is being made to those men now; they are being treated as if they had walked into the manager's office and said, "I have a bright idea: I want to be put on to contract." None of them had done that. They were all asked to go on to contract, for reasons connected with the future of the pit or their own jobs.

Mr. Derek Enright: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Grimethorpe colliery has closed; the Minister assured us that it had to close, because it could not make a profit. Grimethorpe supplied industrial coal. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the industries that it supplied are now supplied with foreign coal, which is much more expensive? Those industries are complaining; meanwhile, Grimethorpe is being turned into a depot to mix Polish and South American coal. Is that not a good example of the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman describes?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has given another example of the unfathomable decisions made by British Coal in recent months. Here was a pit with a market for at least a significant part of its product, which went directly into a power station—providing power for a smelter—and also into the national grid. It was in an exceptional position, which made it more readily marketable than other pits as part of the privatisation process.
What happens now? Coaling stops, the pit is put on to a care and maintenance basis and, of course, it deteriorates. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) pointed out earlier—having worked in the pit for many years—in such circumstances a pit is bound to deteriorate, even if some active care and maintenance is in progress. While it deteriorates, potential licensees or buyers are presented not with a working pit to examine but with a deteriorating pit.
There is a further element of mystery. The day before the closure of the pit, a very expensive coal-cutting machine was put down it. There it was, in place, as though coaling was to continue. Wholly mystifying decisions have been made, leading to all sorts of rumours and suspicions among the work force. It is suspected that what is actually being planned is an internal management buy-sut, contradicting all the possibilities of outside firms coming in to take over. On top of everything else, there is now wild rumour and speculation based largely on facts that seem capable of no other interpretation. Why on earth was the machine put there?
In response to requests from a number of us, the Minister anoounced that equipment must not be taken away from pits—that, of course, must include the machine to which I have referred—unless there is an overwhelming safety reason for doing so. We expect that to be abided by strictly, but it adds to the air of puzzlement. What is going on? Here is an asset which, even when viewed on the Government's own privatisation terms, is potentially usable; from the community's point of view, it is an asset that can be worked in the future and in which there is genuine commercial interest, but one whose future is impaired by an apparently needless cessation of coaling which has left it open to deterioration and uncertainty about its future. That does not make sense.
I welcome the opportunity provided by the amendment to remind the House of the facts.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Two Liberal Members have taken part in the debate. We had one or two yesterday, but it was mostly the same one. It is just worth putting on record that although we welcome Johnny-come-latelies, we are talking about privatising what remains of the coal industry.
Before the last election in 1992, I remember going up and down the coalfields reminding people that in its manifesto, the Liberal party was in favour of privatisation. As a matter of fact, the Liberals have been in favour of most privatisation. When they go up those long, winding drives with pampas grass in the garden, they are in favour of privatisation, but when they go to Tower Hamlets and other places they talk another language—that is, when they are not talking racist language. It is worth noting that they have changed their tune.
5 pm
Although you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are now beginning to shuffle uneasily in the Chair, it is worth noting that we welcome Liberal Members—not that we are about to engage in any coalitions or pacts when Labour takes control. I hope that they do not think that they are jumping on some clever bandwagon. However, we welcome them in the Lobby. It is a pity they did not think about it in 1992. After those great demonstrations in Hyde park in October 1992, that would have been a nice little gesture by the Liberal party, and the man who leads them, Captain


Mainwaring, instead of joining the Tories and saving the Prime Minister's skin in November, just weeks after those great demonstrations. We would have had this Government out, we would not have been debating privatisation, and Ellington colliery, which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) represents, would not be in the dilemma it is.
It is always worth putting on record how we reached the present position. It is a sad story, and the Liberal Democrats have played a significant role in assisting this lousy Government in placing the Bill before the House of Commons.

Mr. Beith: Where does the hon. Gentleman get his enthusiasm for British Coal, which shuts pits and fails to sell coal? That is why Ellington colliery is in the position it is now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman has swung his bat. We must now get down to the amendment.

Mr. Skinner: It is significant and important to talk about how we reached the position that gave the Tory Government the power to introduce the Bill.
As for British Coal, I do not sing its song at all. In July 1992, before the announcement of the pit closure programme, my colleagues and I went to meet British Coal at Hobart house and I challenged Neil Clarke, who has seen two thirds of the pits disappear under his leadership. Why is not he getting two thirds less salary? What is he doing with the same money? Two thirds of his domain has gone.
I hold no torch for British Coal and never have done. The management of British Coal—with the odd exception—are engaged in a conspiracy with the Government to line their own pockets. I have said several times in the House that they plan to run a few pits so that they will have little or no competition from outside to provide the captive market of 30 million tonnes to the power stations.
I hold no brief for British Coal; as far as I am concerned, it stinks, just like the Government. [Interruption.] I know that we are dealing with amendment No. 1. I know what it is all about and I do not need my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesborough (Mr. Bell) to tell me. The amendment asks the Government to instruct the Coal Authority not to shut any pits at this time. It is just a temporary amendment. We all understand that is what amendments are. I do not need any seminar or teaching.
We cannot talk about stopping pit closures, in however short a period, without considering the main problem. Yes, it is about saving time; I am not against that. It is and always has been the lawyers' technique—if they do not have a case, they buy a bit of time as something might turn up.
That is what we have to do with amendments. Most are either wrecking amendments or buying a bit of valuable time. I am not against it, but I do it against the background of knowing that there are more important matters to consider after we have bought some time. We have to base whatever we say or do on a set of principles.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Memberfor Livingston (Mr. Cook) raised the question of Boyds. Boyds was the Government's adviser. They used to quote Boyds at length. The President of the Board of Trade used to tell us what Boyds had said. Now Boyds tells us that, after privatisation, the price of coal per gigajoule will be

higher than it is under the public sector and will cost about £40 a tonne more. That is important and is worth repeating in the House.
We also have to consider another problem when we are talking about saving a few pits. The amendment is about saving a few pits for a short period. If we have 170 pits, as we did at the end of the strike, and 10 per cent. of them are going through some bad geological problems, there are 160 stronger pits to carry the 10 weak pits, or in some cases it could be as many as 20 weak pits. There is a problem when we are down to 17 pits. How will a smaller number of pits manage to save the two or three that are going through a bad phase?
Selby coalfield, with the help of new technology and retreat mining has been able to produce coal at great productivity levels. Let us suppose that it went through a bad phase. Where are the strong pits to carry it through for a year or two? That is how we dig coal; it is an extractive industry. It is not like turning the electricity on in a factory.
The Government talk about getting the number of pits down to 17, 15 or 10 pits. Under privatisation, as soon as a pit runs into trouble, it will shut because there will be no others to bail it out. That is what happened in the previous privatisation and it is something which the Government have never considered. Once you run into trouble and you are not in the public sector, there is nobody to carry the weak pits that are experiencing difficulties at any given time.

Mr. Redmond: Will my hon. Friend care to comment on this point, as he has been around the industry just as long as I have? The National Coal Board, as it was then, had an ABC hit list. Bentley pit was due to close, but was carried on the strength of the other Doncaster pits. It was one of the last pits in the area to shut down.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has been in the industry for a long time and he knows that, when pits have gone through a bad period geologically, they have always known that the other pits in the area can support them, at least for a while, but that no longer applies. So, more and more, the relatively small number of pits that remains will shut.

Mr. Ashton: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is exactly when the Government have done for the farmers? People with bad land or hill farmers, many of them in the Minister's constituency, get subsidies. They have had massive increases last year, in some cases quite rightly. The whole industry is balanced; it has the quota system and the milk marketing board. Why can the Government not do the same for the pits?

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is very perceptive. In an extractive industry that battles against mother nature every day, we cannot always be sure what will happen next. That is why the farmers get subsidies. I only wish that some of the subsidies went to the agricultural workers who have been offered 1.5 per cent.—below the rate of inflation.
Why can the coal industry not have set-aside schemes? We have all talked about saving pits and mothballing pits. If we could have set-aside schemes for the agriculture industry—which have gone up from £100 an acre to £128 an acre in the past few weeks—why can we not have them for the pits? Once the pits are privatised, the chances of


doing that are nil. That is why these are very sad days, as everybody connected to the industry knows and others have said.
What sticks in my gullet is the fact the Government are importing German coal and shutting British pits. German coal is coming into Britain at £110 a tonne, yet the Government have shut down all the anthracite pits in Wales.
There is talk about the wonderful common market. It never bought a cobble of our coal. It ships coal into Rotterdam and launders it there, but it never takes any of our coal. We are still able to produce coal at about £38 a tonne, which compares well with the German price. Germany's steam coal is twice as dear as ours. We read that the Government are now calling on British taxpayers to provide £60 million so that the Spanish coal industry can expand. Their coal will cost twice as much per tonne as British coal.
The Government have a lot to answer for. They will hit the deck at the next election—I hope that it will be a Canadian-style whitewash. We should make no mistake —the coalfields may not cover the whole of Britain, but people out there who live miles from a coalfield understand the vindictiveness involved in shutting pits. As some of my hon. Friends have said, the amendment asks the Government only for a little extra time for some collieries.
We shall finish up with miners chucked out of work in Nottingham. We have a few remaining pits in Yorkshire, but there are none in Derbyshire, except for one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) which has been amalgamated with a pit in Yorkshire. We will allow the French to send electricity here and chuck miners on the dole—equivalent to about 6 million tonnes of coal. We pay £9,000 year to keep a miner out of work. Yes, it is a tragedy.
My hon. Friends must face the argument. We have said that we will go through the Lobby to vote on this amendment and others, as we have done consistently in the past couple of days to save the industry. If we are prepared to go through the Lobby and vote against privatisation, it follows logically that we have a duty to tell the people now that when Labour gets back into power, it will take the coal industry back into public ownership. It is no use running away from that argument—it has to be faced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw knows, that argument cannot be won during the last four weeks of a general election campaign because the Tory tabloids and Tory money will rout us. We have got to start winning the philosophical battle now.
Taking back into public ownership the coal, rail and water industries is an important consideration. We are discussing a handful of pits. We know that we could reopen a few if we got back into power and took them back into the public sector. We are not naive, or innocents abroad. We know that the 700,000 miners that used to work in the mines when I first went down the pit cannot return to that work, but there are pits that could be saved, like the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and others in every coalfield. That is the only way that we can save concessionary coal and miners' pensions, which the Government want to get their sticky fingers on. If we are to achieve those things, we must start commanding the agenda now.
I am happy to take part in my hon. Friends' campaign, but while the amendment is important, we are dealing with a much bigger issue—the demise of the coal industry,

which has been destroyed by the President of the Board of Trade, who has got the gall to parade himself as a future Prime Minister. He has not got a cat in hell's chance.

Mr. Hanson: I very much welcome the debate. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is compelling and summarises our concerns and why the debate is so important. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that, for me and my constituents, the debate is about buying time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) mentioned, there is a shortlist for potential further closures in the run-up to privatisation. The Point of Ayr colliery in my constituency, which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston mentioned, is on that hit list.
For me and my constituents, the debate is about the survival of the coal industry in north Wales and, for my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), it is about the survival of the coal industry in Wales.
5.15 pm
When I came here to represent north Wales, I never thought that I would have to speak up for the remnants of the coal industry in Wales, but that is the position now. Come April, I will have been in the House only two years. In that time, 33 pits have closed nationally. The Point of Ayr pit in my constituency was included in the original list of 31. I remain surprised that it is still on the list. That pit is still open solely because of the work force's commitment, the quality of the product and the investment that they have put in. The amendment proposes that that pit will stay open until privatisation and until the Coal Authority is established.
Early-day motion 923, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, deals with Tower colliery. Point of Ayr and Tower collieries are the only remaining pits in Wales. The licences for those pits, which are on offer in the Bill, make up one fifth of the licences available for pits. What if the pits do not exist by the time that the Bill is enacted? One fifth of the licences will disappear. It still has to be debated in another place—I fervently hope that it us rejected there.
During the past two years, I have made many speeches about the the Point of Ayr colliery—most of my time in the Chamber has been spent arguing about that colliery and the future of coal mines. When I was selected about seven years ago to fight for the seat that I now have the honour to represent, about 700 people worked at that pit. When I was elected, about 460 people worked there and today about 180 work there. What a lack of faith in the quality and commitment of the work force would have been shown if, after doing everything that was asked of them and after jumping 30 fences in the grand national, they fall at the last fence, because the Government kick away the powers that would enable that pit to be maintained.
If the pit is on British Coal's hit list and if it closes in a contracting market, with privatisation around the corner, I doubt—I hope that the Minister will respond to this point—whether the private sector would want to invest in it. It is not that it does not produce quality products or employ high-quality staff, but once privatisation has happened, companies will concentrate on the licences that are on offer.
The debate is about the future of the five pits mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, one of which is Point of Ayr. If the Government do not accept the


amendment and do not provide assurances for the constituency and work force at Point of Ayr and allow the pit to close, they will be throwing away a high-quality product.
Let us consider productivity. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston mentioned the Boyds report. In 1987, miners at the Point of Ayr pit produced 3.1 tonnes per man shift; in 1991, they produced 4.5 tonnes; last year, they produced 8.9 tonnes per shift. Now they produce 14.7 tonnes per man shift with a work force that has been reduced by half. Despite that, the work force has made massive increases in productivity.
The cost of coal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, is down to about £1.15 per gigajoule and the aim is to to get it down to £1 per gigajoule, which is well below the Boyds report target for Point of Ayr and other collieries.
Point of Ayr has made vast improvements in mining techniques. The Minister is aware of the continuous mining system that has been introduced into that colliery, of the advances that have taken place in roof bolting and of the £3 million worth of investment to achieve that productivity. The men have learned; they have worked, contributed, developed and improved productivity, and are producing more coal than ever before. Today, however, they are on a shortlist for potential closure a short time before the measure to enable privatisation is passed in another place. What kind of reward is that? The market is there–80 per cent. of Point of Ayr coal goes to the Fiddler's Ferry power station down the road. Although that power station has recently reduced its capacity by about 30 per cent., the coal produced still has a local market.
The colliery has an excellent work force and working conditions and high productivity, and can achieve and do the business. If the amendment is not accepted, the message will go to British Coal, in respect of Point of Ayr and Tower collieries, "Yes, if you want to close two, three, four, or five, we do not mind. We are trying to reduce the number of pits that can be handed over to a small number of private operators, to knock out competition and reduce the volume of coal produced for the market." That is being done at a time when the pit in my constituency has 15 years' coal supply remaining.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover mentioned farm subsidies. Travelling to London by train on Monday, I read a report in The Times of a farmer who is receiving £26,000 this year for not planting thousands of acres on his farm. Next year, he will receive £42,000 for letting his land go to grass. The farmer in question was photographed wearing a red hunting jacket and breeches, and his horse was feeding from the ground—which did not endear him to me.
That apart, is it right that, while set-aside is paid to farmers not to produce a product, a potentially productive pit that is revolutionising mining techniques, improving productivity, and shows the way forward for many other pits in respect of costs and productivity will be closed? If the amendment is not passed, we will be saying to British Coal, "We don't mind. We will let the market decide. If you want to close the pit, close it." That does not seem logical.
The Bill provides for licensing in Wales and for the retention of a Welsh coalfield. If the amendment is not accepted, will the Minister assure the House and my constituents that, after the Bill leaves another place, a Welsh coalfield will still exist to offer to potential licensees

—as was the aspiration in Committee? Many of my hon. Friends support the amendment, but my prime concern is securing the employment and productivity of the pit in my constituency. If the amendment is defeated, I will be a happier man if the Minister will at least confirm that my aspirations in Committee of a licensing round for Wales will be realised when the Bill completes its progress through both Houses.
My hon. Friend's early-day motion also refers to the 30 April redundancy deadline. From talking to miners in my constituency, I know that in addition to the uncertainty caused by privatisation, the possible rejection of amendment No. 1 and doubt about who will win contracts and how coal will be produced, there is the uncertainty of the 30 April redundancy arrangement. If the amendment fails, my constituents will face a dilemma that I would not wish on any hon. Member—they must look forward either to a potential future in a privatised industry or to accepting redundancy payments. They do not know whether they have a future in a privatised industry.
The Minister could accept the amendment today, but if, as I suspect, he rejects it, he could at least give assurances to miners in my constituency and others that there will be a future for them after privatisation. That will go a long way to meeting the amendment's objectives.
In Committee, my hon. Friends and I opposed privatisation, for a host of reasons. The Government majority that is not currently evident in the Chamber will doubtless ensure that further amendments are made before Third Reading and that the Bill will go to another place. I object to privatisation on principle and as a matter of practicality in respect of my constituents. However, if the industry cannot be publicly owned, my constituents want to work in a privatised industry.
Now that my constituents have reached this stage, they should be given time to compete in the privatised market. They should be allowed the opportunity to be offered employment under one of the new licences. If the Government accept the amendment, my constituents will be able to pass through the 30 April barrier with some hope for the future, knowing that there is a possibility of further work and productivity. They can produce quality coal cheaply, contribute and work, and they have shown their commitment.
If the Minister rejects the amendment, he will put the five pits mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston at the mercy of British Coal—and to date, that mercy has brought the closure of 33 pits in my 20 months as a Member of Parliament. I urge the Minister to give my constituents the hope for the future that they deserve.

Mr. Michael Clapham: The amendment is essential if Britain is to have a sustainable coal industry. Reference was made to the way in which the industry has been run down but unless one studies the figures, one cannot appreciate the scale. In 1984, the country had 170 collieries employing 172,000 men. Ten years later, it has just 17 collieries. In one decade, the Government closed 153 collieries and made redundant 160,000 workers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) said, the Government are working to an agenda. In 1990, Britain still had 73 collieries employing 65,500 men. That same year, the Government commissioned the Rothschild report and privatised the electricity supply industry. The architects of that privatisation, now Lord


Parkinson and Lord Wakeham, worked the market in such a way as to rig it against the coal industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others stressed that the Government have a historical dislike of the mining industry and have been committed to running it down since 1974. They saw their opportunity with electricity privatisation.
The Rothschild report set an agenda of between 10 and 14 active collieries. Figures showing the run-down of the industry since 1990 prove that the Government have been working to the Rothschild agenda. In 1992, the country had 50 collieries employing 50,000 men. By 1994, it had 17 collieries employing 14,000 men. It is now reported that another four collieries are likely to be closed within a month, leaving just 13.
It has already been said that miners have increased productivity enormously. When we look at the figures again, we can see just what a great effort they have put into ensuring that their industry is one of high productivity and viability, and an addition to the energy market. In 1984, we were talking in terms of just over 2.4 tonnes per man shift; today, the average is almost 8.5 overall—an enormous increase in productivity.
When Boyds examined the industry during the Government's review, it was being spoken of in terms of an industry that could be sustained into the future if it could reach the productivity levels that are now being achieved. Boyds also referred to the cost per gigajoule and suggested that, if it could be brought down to around £1.30, a great slice of the industry would survive. Prices in the industry are now far below what he envisaged.
For example, Bentley colliery, which closed on 4 December 1993, was producing coal at below £1 per gigajoule. Between September and its closure, it was producing coal at 88p per gigajoule. That price is competitive with world market prices and the price of coal produced in deep coal mines anywhere in the world, yet it closed on 4 December.
5.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to Manton colliery and the fact that it was producing coal at less than £1 per gigajoule and was only recently closed. Quite clearly, the Government have launched their attack to ensure that the industry is pruned to a size where it will be profitable for a quick rip-off. It is madness to close the coal mining industry in that way and stop its contributions to the energy economy.
Reference has been made to gas prices. Other countries, such as Holland, are looking to change their energy economy and are moving away from gas to coal because they believe that, in the short to medium term, gas prices are likely to increase. When one bears in mind the Zhironovsky factor, considering that Europe takes some 21 per cent. of its gas from the Soviet Union, any cutoff of gas from the Soviet Union into Europe would have an enormous impact on the price of gas. That impact would immediately result in Britain having to turn away from an energy market that is moving towards gas to look to its coal resources, but those resources will have been sterilised. We would have to spend enormous amounts of money to reopen the collieries.
The amendment would ensure that, if some of the few collieries that are left are closed, they will be maintained on a care and maintenance basis so that they can be reopened and put up for sale when the industry is privatised. That is

essential. Has the Minister inquired whether funding is available from the European Community to do that, as finance might well be possible to mothball collieries?
Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the common agricultural policy and set-aside. We should be talking about setting aside collieries to protect them for the future and about ensuring that we have a resource that can be used in the energy market. The amendment is enormously important if we are to have a sustainable industry for the future. I hope that the Minister can tell us that he is prepared to take it on board and accept it.

Mr. McLoughlin: We have had a wide-ranging debate, in which many hon. Members who were part of the Standing Committee that examined the Bill took part. The House will recall that, when the White Paper was published in March of last year, the Government welcomed British Coal's commitment to offer to the private sector any pits that it no longer wished to operate. Since then, British Coal has advertised a total of some 28 pits, announced the licensing of Clipstone and Rossington to R J B Mining and made a conditional agreement to licence both Trentham and Coventry to Coal Investments. In addition, British Coal is continuing negotiations on a further two tenders and is still evaluating tenders for four pits.
I remind the House of the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 9 February, in which he made it clear that
The Government are committed to ensuring that any closing pits are made available to the private sector…British Coal has indicated that the corporation is unlikely to offer any further closing pits for lease/licence. It is the Government's intention, therefore, to offer such pits in parallel to the privatisation regional packages. Such pits would meanwhile be kept on care and maintenance basis."—[Official Report, 9 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 315–16.]
That meets the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Clapham: Is the Minister aware that, when Neil Clarke, the chairman of British Coal, appeared before the Trade and Industry Select Committee, he said that, of the 30-odd collieries that had been closed—some are still open, although not working as operating mines—only six would be likely to be granted licences?

Mr. McLoughlin: I have stated quite clearly the Government's position on any pits that close and on the regional packages if any future closures were to take place. I should have thought that hon. Members would have welcomed and endorsed the Government's policy of giving the private sector the opportunity to operate those pits even if it is some time after the event.
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) told us that he believed that this privatisation was the low tide of the Government's privatisation policy. Quite frankly, he has believed that about every privatisation that the Government have introduced. He has not agreed with a single privatisation. When he winds up later, perhaps he will tell us whether he supports what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) called on him to do—renationalising the industry—and whether that is a commitment that he is prepared to enter into. If so, how he would carry it forward?

Mr. Robin Cook: I am happy to respond to the Minister, because I have always said, whenever asked, that


I would be astonished if our plans to rescue the coal industry after the next election did not involve public ownership. My right hon. and learned Friend the leader of the Labour party has always made it perfectly plain that, where we believe that the management of a pit is not meeting our energy strategy, and where the safety of the work force at that pit is at risk, we will not hesitate to revoke the licence of that pit.
The one qualification that we make is that that step back into public ownership should have the support of the work force. That means that the people who are contemplating taking over these licences should bear in mind that we have a clear commitment to restore public ownership of the coal industry and will have clear regard to whether the work force has confidence in them.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has now said. The hon. Member for Bolsover also went on to mention a few other industries, but I will not push the hon. Gentleman on that point, because that is slightly wider than what we are discussing at the moment.
It is interesting that a number of Labour Members have spoken of their contempt for British Coal. It is highly unlikely that any of the miners will seek necessarily to go back into the nationalised industry that is being proposed. Indeed, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) was perhaps more honest than most of his colleagues when he explained to us that he did not necessarily blame the Government and that he had constantly complained about a number of aspects of British Coal under a number of Governments—for example, the way that it had narrowed its horizons on the available markets.
We had interesting discussions in Committee about that. When the hon. Member for Livingston goes on about the low tide of privatisation, it is perhaps worth treating those words with some contempt as, so far as he is concerned, there has never been a high tide.

Mr. Tipping: The Minister has just been talking about British Coal and its management. Earlier, he gave a commitment that the Government would make available for licence any pit that closed. How can that be the case in Ollerton, where the mine shafts are being filled in at the moment? It is a complete reneging on that promise.

Mr. McLoughlin: I would simply say what I said earlier. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the response given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy. The Government stand by that commitment.
A number of questions were raised about the future size of the industry. In the run-up to privatisation, that must depend on British Coal's success in continuing to reduce costs and to supply competitive products that meet customers' needs. The White Paper offered opportunities not guarantees, and the Government are doing all that we reasonably can, consistent with the economic realities and the legal constraints, to increase the opportunities for British Coal. We took up the central recommendation of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on a subsidy for coal and we have made four offers, subject to European Union clearance.

Mr. Clapham: The Minister says that the Government took up the Select Committee's central recommendation, but the central recommendation was about extending the

market franchise. Had that been done, a market for 17 million tonnes of coal would have been created. The Government were certainly not prepared to accept that; they threw out all the main recommendations of the Select Committee's report.

Mr. McLoughlin: I do not think that anyone has argued that in the past. As I said, one of the central recommendations was to offer a subsidy and that is exactly what the Government did, in connection with the additional sales of deep-mined coal for electricity generation.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey, for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) and for Midlothian, asked about conflict of interests and the possible position of British Coal management in any future sale of British Coal. I should like to put clearly on the record the fact that British Coal has internal guidelines requiring any manager preparing for a management buy-out proposal for any part of the business to declare an interest to the chairman. I understand that the chairman has received no such declaration of interest in respect of British Coal's mining operations.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: rose—

Mr. McLoughlin: May I finish my point? Then I shall give way.
British Coal has detailed internal guidelines to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Any employee who may in due course become involved in the preparation of a bid will be required to notify an interest so that proper monitoring arrangements and control can be established. Any bid by managers or other employees will be considered on its merits against bids from other potential purchasers. The Government will of course be the vendor in that case.

Mr. O'Neill: The Minister spoke initially about managers, and then mentioned other employees. Does he draw a distinction between the two? Are they to be treated the same? Can we take it that the people at Hobart house will be subject to exactly the same conditions? The balance of the Minister's comments suggested that some distinction would be drawn between the two types of British Coal employee. Will he clarify that question?

Mr. McLoughlin: What I said was fairly clear, but if it needs further clarification I shall gladly supply that later. The internal guidelines require any manager working on management buy-out proposals for any part of the business to declare an interest to the chairman, and I understand that no such declaration has hitherto been made.

Mr. Eric Clarke: rose—

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. McLoughlin: I give way to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept that that is a wholly unsatisfactory condition? Even if we believed that nobody in British Coal was interested in a buy-out, and nobody had yet come forward to say that he was, none the less if somebody eventually came forward surely it would be impossible for such a person to be working up a bid to win a tender and at the same time managing the best prospects for the whole disposal to the best bidder. Those two positions cannot be compatible. Cannot the Minister


see that? Cannot he say at the Dispatch Box that no conflict of interests will be permitted and that if someone registers an interest in a buy-out he must cease to have a role in a company that may be seeking to dispose of the pits to somebody else?

Mr. McLoughlin: I have made it clear that, when there is a conflict of interests, it must be drawn to the attention of the chairman. There are strict internal guidelines to cover that point. This is well-trodden territory, and no conflict of interests will be allowed.

Mr. Eric Clarke: The Minister mentioned me and I am of course interested in the same subject. I have no axe to grind against management—that is, against a manager of a colliery—but I have an axe to grind against the most senior management. What happens if the people at the very top do not declare a conflict of interests, yet become involved in a takeover bid? What is the logic? If they are not doing what we say they are doing, why? There is no logic in that.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am slightly puzzled about what the hon. Gentleman is asking. Where people have an interest, they will be required to declare it. If they do not, the various contacts with which they are involved will become subject to further consideration.
The hon. Member for Bolsover gave us his usual history lesson. I am glad that he spoke after the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), because yesterday he told us that the whole problem was caused by the position of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers in the 1984–85 strike. The hon. Member for Wentworth speaks on behalf of NACODS, so he might not exactly agree with that conclusion. The hon. Member for Bolsover went over his usual ground today. I am sure that he must find some comfort in his Front-Bench spokesman's commitment to renationalisation.

Mr. Skinner: It is a big improvement.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is never usually in the vanguard or the leadership of his party, but perhaps there is a chance for him yet.

Mr. Skinner: I want renationalisation without compensation.

Mr. McLoughlin: That is an internal matter. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will make his case with vigour. I do not ask the hon. Member for Livingston to comment; he may be a little less forthcoming than the hon. Member for Bolsover.
We cannot accept the amendment. I have made it abundantly clear that any mines closed will be offered to the private sector. That offers the best way forward for the British coal industry.

Mr. Robin Cook: Hon. Members who have attended the whole debate will have observed that the one question to which the Minister did not respond was the one that I asked at the start of the debate, about whether he had received the Boyds report showing that privatisation will put up the price of coal.

Mr. Skinner: He has got it.

Mr. Cook: On that matter, as on others, I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend. It is a pretty sure bet that if that document did not exist we would have been told that

it did not. If it existed, but proved that the price of coal after privatisation would fall rather than rise, we would have been told that from the Dispatch Box. Instead, there has been an eloquent silence on the subject of the Boyds paper. From that I can conclude only that the report from which I quoted exists, and that it concludes that for the first pit on which cost projections have been made, privatisation would put up the price of coal rather than bringing it down.
If I am wrong in that conclusion I shall be happy to give way to the Minister now, so that he can put the record straight. I suspect that those little notes that we saw being passed through the Chamber confirmed to the Minister the fact that privatisation will reverse the trend of the past 10 years of public ownership and put up, rather than bring down, costs.
The Minister argued about conflict of interests if British Coal were preparing a bid to buy the pits that it is selling. The only reason that we are in that position at all is that the Government have failed to arouse any interest from the major players in private mining, such as Hanson, which they had hoped to interest in privatisation. They talked about Hanson on the day on which the Bill was proposed for publication, only for Hanson immediately to announce that it had no interest. So the Government are prepared to put up with any amount of conflict of interest in British Coal so long as a bid is produced, because they are desperate for anybody at all to come forward and make an offer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) talked about the importance of the critical mass—the number of pits in operation—so that one can sustain pits that are not producing cash flow because they are undergoing development. In order to sell pits, the Government are willing to break the coal industry up into five different packets. They have only 17 pits, yet they are prepared to divide them into five packets. How on earth will they then achieve the critical mass that my hon. Friend described, so as to enable some pits to take other pits through periods in which they have no cash flow because they are not producing coal?
The Minister told the House that any pit currently in operation would be offered to the private sector in parallel to privatisation, although not necessarily as part of privatisation. If that is the Minister's conclusion, why cannot he accept the amendment to keep those pits operating in the meantime? Why operate them only on a care and maintenance basis, which results in having to pay the cost of the care and maintenance without receiving the benefit of the output? One cannot employ a work force on care and maintenance. If production is closed, it may be possible to keep the pit under care and maintenance, but the work force will be dismissed, the team will be broken up, the people in it will receive redundancy payments and they will be put on the dole.
The final point that hon. Members should weigh up when considering how to vote in the Division that is about to occur was made repeatedly from the Opposition Benches, especially by my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). There has been a betrayal of the mining work force who, over the past decade, have achieved dramatic increases in productivity in their industry—for example, at Point of Ayr, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn referred, where the work force have increased productivity fivefold over the past eight years. That dramatic


achievement deserves better from the House than the betrayal of closing their pit. For that reason, we shall vote to keep that pit and the 16 others open.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 297.

Division No.178]
[5.50 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Denham, John


Ainger, Nick
Dewar, Donald


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dixon, Don


Allen, Graham
Dobson, Frank


Alton, David
Donohoe, Brian H.


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dowd, Jim



Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Armstrong, Hilary
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ashton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Austin-Walker, John
Enright, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Etherington, Bill


Barnes, Harry
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barron, Kevin
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Battle, John
Fatchett, Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Faulds, Andrew


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fisher, Mark


Bell, Stuart
Flynn, Paul


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bennett, Andrew F.
Foulkes, George


Benton, Joe
Fraser, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Fyfe, Maria


Betts, Clive
Galbraith, Sam


Blair, Tony
Galloway, George


Blunkett, David
Gapes, Mike


Boyes, Roland
Garrett, John


Bradley, Keith
George, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Godsiff, Roger


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Byers, Stephen
Gordon, Mildred


Cabom, Richard
Gould, Bryan


Callaghan, Jim
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Gunnell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hain, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hall, Mike


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hanson, David


Clapham, Michael
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Harvey, Nick



Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Henderson, Doug


Clelland, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ann
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Connarty, Michael
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)



Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hutton, John


Dafis, Cynog
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Ingram, Adam


Darling, Alistair
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Davidson, Ian
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jamieson, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)





Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Prescott, John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Alan
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Radice, Giles


Khabra, Piara S.
Randall, Stuart


Kilfoyle, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


Kirkwood, Archy
Redmond, Martin


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Reid, Dr John


Lewis, Terry
Rendel, David


Litherland, Robert
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Livingstone, Ken
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Loyden, Eddie
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rogers, Allan


McAllion, John
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted


Macdonald, Calum
Ruddock, Joan


McFall, John
Salmond, Alex


McKelvey, William
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McLeish, Henry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maclennan, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Short, Clare


McNamara, Kevin
Simpson, Alan


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mandelson, Peter
Snape, Peter


Marek, Dr John
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spellar, John


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Martlew, Eric
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Michael, Alun
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Straw, Jack


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Milburn, Alan
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Miller, Andrew
Tipping, Paddy


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Turner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Vaz, Keith


Morgan, Rhodri
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morley, Elliot
Wallace, James


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Walley, Joan


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mudie, George
Wareing, Robert N


Mullin, Chris
Watson, Mike


Murphy, Paul
Welsh, Andrew


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Olner, William
Wilson, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wise, Audrey


Parry, Robert
Worthington, Tony


Patchett, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wright, Dr Tony


Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pope, Greg
Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Alan Meale


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baldry, Tony


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Ancram, Michael
Bates, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bellingham, Henry


Ashby, David
Bendall, Vivian


Aspinwall, Jack
Beresford, Sir Paul






Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Body, Sir Richard
Garnier, Edward


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gill, Christopher


Booth, Hartley
Gillan, Cheryl


Boswell, Tim
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowden, Andrew
Gorst, John


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bright, Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, William


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, Sir John


Butler, Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sydney
Heald, Oliver


Churchill, Mr
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hicks, Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dicks, Terry
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, Sir David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Legg, Barry


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward


Faber, David
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas
Lidington, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Luff, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, Sir David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fry, Sir Peter
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gallie, Phil
Marland, Paul





Marlow, Tony
Speed, Sir Keith


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Spink, Dr Robert


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spring, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Sproat, Iain


Mills, Iain
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Stephen, Michael


Moate, Sir Roger
Stern, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Allan


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Streeter, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Sumberg, David


Needham, Richard
Sweeney, Walter


Nelson, Anthony
Sykes, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter



Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Norris, Steve
Thomason, Roy


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ottaway, Richard
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Page, Richard
Thumham, Peter


Paice, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patnick, Irvine
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tredinnick, David


Pawsey, James
Trend, Michael


Pickles, Eric
Trotter, Neville


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, David (Waveney)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walden, George


Richards, Rod
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Riddick, Graham
Waller, Gary


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robathan, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Watts, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wells, Bowen


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whitney, Ray


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Whittingdale, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville, Tom
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Willetts, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilshire, David



Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Robert G. Hughes


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)



Soames, Nicholas

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Schedule 2

RESTRUCTURING SCHEMES

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 76, line 30, at end insert—
'(3A) Any term of an employment contract or non-contractual condition of employment, including any entitlement to concessionary fuel, which is transferred under a restructuring scheme or modification agreement shall not be altered or withdrawn without the agreement of the employee or his trade union.
(3B) An employee may only have terminated by notice an employment contract transferred by a restructuring scheme or


modification agreement if the employer gives no less than 12 months notice after reasonable consultation with the employee's trade union.
(3C) Paragraphs 3A and 3B above shall continue to apply when the employer changes as a result of a transfer of undertakings.'.
A number of the debates that we have already had on the Bill have related to matters such as redundancies, and we have touched on certain areas of the organisation of the coal industry. We now come to an area which is of more than passing concern to the 17,000 miners who remain in the industry.
A number of beneficiaries—the current employees of British Coal—are in receipt of concessionary coal. As hon. Members are aware, concessionary coal is perceived by the work force to be not a concession but a right. It is perceived by them as an extra payment for the work they do. It has considerable significance in terms of their houses, and certainly it sustained the market for domestic coal in the past.
I understand that there are 4 million to 5 million domestic coal consumers in the United Kingdom. A large number of them live in mining communities. A large number of them are beneficiaries under schemes whereby retired miners and their dependents receive an allocation of coal every year. It has been estimated that the payment of coal is worth about £850 per annum; in real terms, it is more than £1,000 per annum for every household.
In the case of miners who have retired—if they die, their spouses receive the benefits—it is an important payment. Those who are unable to use the coal for one reason or another receive a smaller amount of cash in lieu; nevertheless, it is of some importance to them. We have been told—in Standing Committee, we discussed the matter at some length—that those benefits will not be affected by the change of ownership.
For those currently employed by British Coal, the concessionary coal provisions are in some doubt. Although the amendment focuses on concessionary coal, we are in fact examining the whole range of industrial relations provisions in the coal industry, which are the product of the attempts that were first identified as important in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946.
That Act says that British Coal has a duty to enter into consultations with organisations which represent a substantial proportion of its employees to establish and maintain joint machinery for conciliation, with provision for arbitration. The Act also made provision for consultation on safety matters and general industrial matters.
It is our belief that, over the years, there has been undue focus on the significance of the national coal strikes during the 40 or so years of public ownership of the coal industry. Although there have been three important strikes, tremendous strides have been made in the creation of a system of industrial relations within the coal industry. When the Donovan commission reported in the 1960s, it looked in large measure to the coal industry for models for conciliation and arbitration systems.
The Opposition wish to ensure that the positive achievements in the coal industry of unions and management in establishing that system should be sustained. We have identified concessionary coal as one of the beneficial aspects for individual workers. We would

like to think that due provision would be made when the transfer is made and when the restructuring takes place for the continuation of trade union activities within the coal industry beyond the minimalist approach normally provided by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
The amendment asks that contractual and non-contractual conditions of employment be transferred, and that they will not be withdrawn without the agreement of the employee or of his trade union. The amendment goes on to say:
An employee may only have terminated by notice an employment contract transferred by a restructuring scheme or modification agreement if the employer gives no less than 12 months notice after reasonable consultation with the employee's trade union.
That point is significant, because an arrangement already exists whereby the terms and conditions of existing British Coal managers cannot be adjusted without 12 months' notice. If it is good enough for managers under public ownership, it should be an essential and basic condition for private coal employees at any rank under the new arrangements. We therefore want that enshrined within the legislation, because, as I have said, in a number of instances, undue attention has been paid to problems in the coal industry which have found expression in long and bitter national strikes.
Outside those industrial disputes, there has been a tremendous achievement of agreement, understanding and ultimately conciliation, in which difficult and fractious disputes have been avoided by the skill of the management and the unions in finding a way through the minefield. In many respects, the difficulties have been avoided because of the structures which have been in place.
If the Bill achieves a majority in the House and elsewhere, we want to ensure that arrangements can be set in place when the new owners take over. They would go a considerable way to improve industrial relations in the new set-up, and would protect the terms and conditions of the individuals who would continue to be employed by the new owners.
The Opposition also feel that the amendment would leave the new or potential owners in no doubt about what their responsibilities ought to be in respect of the provision of good industrial relations. We recognise that there will always be a process of negotiation on wages and general conditions, but we also want to underpin our commitment that, if retired miners have a right to concessionary coal, it ought to be a right also for miners who continue in employment.
It is important that that is placed in the legislation, and that the potential licensees are under no illusions about their responsibilities to the work force. It is realistic to assume that, in a climate of industrial relations rather different from that which prevailed in 1946 and 1979, certain things ought nevertheless to be laid down and made specific.
We feel that the provisions and conditions of employment for the mineworkers should continue for at least the first 12 months of the period of new ownership. Those terms and conditions should be enshrined in the legislation for the benefit of the industry. They would provide the work force with minimal guarantees about the continuation of their present terms and conditions.
The amendment would benefit the industry and industrial relations. I have no hesitation in commending it


to the House, and I hope that hon. Members of all parties who look for good industrial relations and a healthy relationship between management and unions will be prepared to back it.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Before the general election, the miners parliamentary group met the then Secretary of State for Energy, who is now the noble Lord Wakeham. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) will listen, as I am sure that he is very interested.
The group and the Secretary of State discussed the threats of privatisation and the intentions of the Government, because we have all known for a considerable time what the Government's real intentions were with regard to the mining industry. The then Secretary of State referred to things which he saw as historical liabilities. Part of those liabilities were pensions, and another part was concessionary fuel.
I was a miner for 23 years. I worked in two coalfields; first, in the Scottish coalfield as a young apprentice engineer where I qualified as a mining engineer; and then for 19 years in the Nottinghamshire coalfield. The different areas had different concessionary fuel agreements. Nottinghamshire at that time had a better agreement than most areas. When the Scottish miners were getting 7 tonnes per annum, the Nottinghamshire miners were getting 19 tons 17 cwt—I am sorry for talking in the old language.
That difference was not because of a deliberate preference for one area against the other, but was to do with local agreements. The Nottinghamshire miners were certainly entitled to their larger allocation of the national agreement. They had an agreement whereby they filled 21 cwt of tubs.
That was in the hand-filled days, of which I am sure Conservative Members will have great memories, when miners lay on their sides in water and dust in spaces of anything from 22 in to 3 ft. They were filling tubs, and getting paid per tub. Miners who were filling 21 cwt of tubs were getting paid per tonne, and the 5 per cent. extra coal that they were digging with their own hands went into their own concessionary fuel agreement.
That agreement lasted until 1981, when there was a national concessionary fuel agreement. That has always been part and parcel of miners' rights, and that is understandable. Who among us—even among Government Members—would deny a miner who has worked up to 3,000 ft underground the right to concessionary fuel? There are perks in other industries, and it is my view that concessionary fuel for a miner who has worked in those conditions to produce the coal is not a perk, but a right. There has never been any disagreement about that.
According to the then Secretary of State, it was a historical liability, which was causing problems in making the industry attractive to the private sector. I also mentioned pensions; I may get an opportunity later, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak on that point.
We now have a worrying situation in which the Government have taken on a part of our concerns by seeking to give assurances—I hope that they are copper-bottomed, but I have my suspicions—that coal will be provided for retired miners and for miners' widows and

beneficiaries now. It is important that we write into the Bill the guarantee that mineworkers still in the industry—God knows, there are not that many of them—will have the same entitlement to coal as their predecessors.
The Government tell us in the Bill that miners' terms, employment contracts and so on will be the same under the Bill. That is not good enough. Even now, miners working down the pits in the British coal industry who are employed not by British Coal but by private companies contracted to British Coal have no entitlement to fuel. Even before the industry is privatised, men working down the pits have lost their entitlement to fuel.
The Minister would have to be very persuasive to persuade me and my colleagues that miners will not lose their entitlement to fuel when the private contractors who will be making bids to take over the industry after privatisation already do not provide a fuel entitlement. The Minister will have to be very persuasive to persuade me and others that the coal entitlement will remain. I suggest that it will not.
As some companies have already done, private sector companies will tell miners that, within three months, their terms and conditions will be changed. I can give an example. Pit closures have taken place recently in Nottinghamshire. Ollerton colliery was closed. I worked at Ollerton. When I went to that pit in 1968, it had 100 years proven coal. When Ollerton was closed, it was one of the most profitable pits in our coal industry; yet it has gone. It has been closed for reasons known only to those who have decided to bring the axe down on that pit.
I am told that salvage work is going on at Ollerton. British Coal is employing miners who have been given their redundancy notices to salvage stuff from the pit. They are employed on a week-to-week basis on lower money than they were paid by British Coal. They have no guarantees, such as fuel entitlements, protective clothing and so on. That is happening now, as we stand here discussing the Bill and listening to Ministers.
I see the Minister for Energy in his place. He usually comes in when I get the rare chance to speak on these matters. He has sought to assure us about the Bill, but his assurances do not hold water. We only have to reflect on what is happening in the industry today.
If the Minister is telling me that, as soon as this iniquitous Bill becomes an Act, everyone will be okay and miners will have protection and concessionary fuel, I do not believe it for a minute. I ask the Minister to accept what the amendment seeks to do. If he agrees with us that a miner who works 3,000 ft underground deserves a coal entitlement, he should give that guarantee in the Bill.
As we have heard in the courts of our land, statements and promises made by Ministers from the Dispatch Box which are not in the legislation do not mean anything. If the mineworkers are to be given the protection they need and deserve, the amendment must be written into the Bill. I hope that the Minister will consider it.

Mr. Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on this point. In the process of transition to privatisation the conditions for which miners have fought through the unions over the decades are being stripped away one by one. The entitlement to concessionary coal is a supreme example of that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, the average entitlement of 4 tonnes of concessionary coal per annum is equivalent to about


£1,000 before tax. That is a great deal of money in an area such as Neath, particularly to many retired miners and their widows.
In my constituency the private mine owners simply reneged on their commitment to provide concessionary fuel. For example, when Ryan Mining International took over some pits in the Neath valley, it abandoned its previous concessionary fuel entitlement and paid its workers £125 per year instead. That is about one eighth of the value of their entitlement if they had retained their previous concessionary fuel conditions. If one is lucky, £125 would buy 1 tonne of coal on the market in Neath. It would last no more than seven weeks in the winter months.
I cite an example to illustrate the point. An 81-year-old man who used to work in Rheola pit near my home village of Resolven suddenly received through the post a notice from Ryan Mining International, which had taken over the pit some two years before, that the company was dispensing with his discretionary fuel entitlement and would give him £125 a year as a substitute. That nowhere near met the needs for which he had depended on the entitlement that he had enjoyed for many years.
Another example is the private mining company Welsh Dragon, which has two mines in the upper Swansea valley. It simply terminated its concessionary fuel entitlement. The next week its workers and their dependants had their entitlement taken away from them. I emphasise the point made by some of my hon. Friends that concessionary fuel is not a perk. It is deferred wages. Many miners paid for the coal during their service in the mines. More than that, during their working lives, they contributed to the supply of house coal for widows of retired miners and miners who were not entitled to the full allocation. They contributed to a pool from which those widows and miners could draw.
Concessionary fuel is not an optional extra. It is a basic entitlement earned through deferred wages, in many cases through a long life of struggle working in the pits. It is a vital resource. The Government did not give us adequate assurances in Committee. Unfortunately, I do not expect the Minister to do so when he replies.
The threatened withdrawal of concessionary fuel is causing fear throughout south Wales and, I am sure, across the country. If the Government had any remnants of honour following their treatment of the coal industry in recent years, which has been enshrined in the privatisation Bill, they would give guarantees to those people who have been dependent on concessionary fuel for many years and expected to be so for many years to come. They now have hanging over them the sword of Damocles of the withdrawal of a vital entitlement on which they rely so extensively.

Mr. Clapham: Amendment No. 16 is essential if we are to maintain a floor level of terms and conditions in the mining industry. In 1947 when the industry was nationalised, a carry-over agreement was made which transferred all the terms and conditions of the previous period into the era of nationalisation. It provided a ground level of terms and conditions on which the negotiations with the new nationalised industry could build.
Since that time, a set of terms and conditions has been achieved which, while perhaps not providing all the conditions that I would like to see in the mining industry,

provides good remunerative opportunities and, as my hon. Friends have said, concessionary fuel for people who work in the industry as well as their families.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) mentioned that the concessionary fuel agreement differed from area to area and colliery to colliery until 1983 when, for the first time in the industry, a national concessionary fuel agreement was achieved. That came into being after 10 years of negotiation. I think that the Minister would accept that to reach a national agreement to span a whole industry when many different agreements applied from one colliery to another and one area to another, was an enormous achievement.
6.30 pm
The agreement provides, as of right, entitlements to employees and their widows and is the first time that widows have received an entitlement as of right, rather than one that is passed from their husbands. The national concessionary fuel agreement provides for the allocation of smokeless fuel and bituminous coal where coal can be burned.
At present the use of smokeless fuel is growing and it is becoming perhaps a more important part of the allocation than bituminous coal. The agreement also provides cash in lieu. When widows or former miners become too frail to handle solid fuel, they can apply for a cash-in-lieu payment which will go towards providing heating and lighting in their homes.
It is essential that we maintain the agreement, and the Minister gave assurances in Committee that it will be applicable to former workers and their widows. However, he did not extend similar assurances to those who continue to work in the industry. The amendment seeks to ensure that the men who continue to work in the industry receive their concessionary fuel. That is an important entitlement. Unless that right is written into the statute, there is no doubt that the new employers will seek to change the terms and conditions very quickly.
All of the agreements negotiated in the industry have been embraced in the contract of employment. If, shortly after taking over a colliery, a new employer were to give notice that he was going to change the terms and conditions of the contract, within a short period we would be likely to see the concessionary fuel agreement replaced in the case of men who continue to work in the industry. I think that that would be grossly unfair.
My hon. Friend has already pointed out that it is not a concession as such; it is a right which is part of the remuneration package. Former workers and their widows were originally given the entitlement because men who worked in the industry had part of their entitlements stopped and put into a pool from which former workers and widows could draw their coal. The entitlement is part of a remunerative package and, on that basis, the Minister should accept the amendment.
In Committee we tried to impress upon the Minister the fact that the protection of terms and conditions should be written into the licences of the new operators, but he rejected our view.
Many other terms and conditions have been negotiated since nationalisation. The industry has always operated a very sophisticated industrial relations procedure and currently about 49 volumes of memoranda of agreement have been negotiated which apply across the board to collieries and workshops and provide good standards of


terms and conditions. Unless entitlements are written into the statute, it is likely that the new employers will withdraw them. They will do that by giving notice that they intend to change the contract of employment, or they may pass on colliery work to a subsidiary. If that occurs, the new terms and conditions offered by a subsidiary could replace the terms and conditions that the miner expects based on agreements that have been negotiated previously within the industry.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that he is prepared to ensure that conciliation procedures continue in the industry. Section 46 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 set out conciliation and consultation procedures for the whole industry. British Coal terminated the consultation procedures in December 1985 and the conciliation procedures were terminated in May 1986 after notice was given of their termination in December 1985.
Since that time, new conciliation procedures have been agreed in the industry and British Coal agreed that it would meet the unions on a bilateral basis. Unfortunately, British Coal has not kept its word and, as a result, many of the meetings that should have taken place under the conciliation procedure have not occurred.
I hope that the Minister will ensure that conciliation procedures are adopted in the industry. I hope that he will accept consultation procedures for the industry and, in addition, that he will accept amendment No. 16. That is essential if we are to provide the floor level of terms and conditions required by miners who will be working for successor companies.

Mr. Tipping: My colleagues have quite rightly stressed the importance of the concessionary coal entitlement. There are widespread concerns about that in coalfield communities. The Minister has given some assurances, but there is an area of weakness affecting those employees currently working in the pits who will enter the newly privatised industry. This amendment safeguards their position for 12 months.
However, an important principle lies behind the amendment. Mineworkers have struggled for years, both through action and negotiation, to achieve decent terms of conditions and contracts. All that could change under a privatised industry. The date for restructuring may be 1 January 1995, but I think that the Government face an enormous challenge in moving from the current situation to that restructuring point.
It was pointed out this afternoon that the redundancy scheme will end on 30 April this year—just a few weeks away. Men and their families are making decisions and thinking very carefully about their futures. First, they want to know whether their pits will remain in operation and, secondly, they are assessing the chances of, their pits surviving in a new, privatised world.
There are many unknowns in that assessment. The amendment provides the men with some security; it ensures that when employees transfer to a private employer they will not give away hard-won rights and conditions of employment.

Mr. Clapham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Minister were to announce that he would allow the redundancy terms to operate for three years, that would engender confidence in the men who remain in the industry?

Mr. Tipping: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point because it was one which I intended to develop. I commend this amendment for at least providing the possibility of employment under the old terms and conditions for 12 months after restructuring. I think that the correct way forward is for the Government to tell the people who work in the mining industry that they will maintain the present redundancy terms through to the point of privatisation and beyond. I find it difficult to see how the 10,000 men who now work for British Coal can continue to work in the industry through to privatisation. The amendment is a limited step in the right direction but the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for a three-year commitment would give people a great deal of confidence.
I know that the Minister has been approached by representatives of some of the mining unions who say that there is yet another approach to that which we are advocating. We are advocating the TUPE long-term conditions approach, but they suggest loyalty bonuses to people who stay in the industry up to privatisation. It is then not a matter of principle but of practicality. The Government are going full steam ahead towards privatisation but, frankly, they have not given sufficient thought to the matter.
I know from conversations in coalfield communities that miners who want redundancy but who are not given it by 30 April will, after that date, act in a ca'canny way. If they do not feel that they have been given a fair chance of working under the same protected conditions or of receiving a bonus, they can create havoc. The Minister needs to think carefully about how he is going to keep the 10,000 men who are currently employed in the industry working when it is privatised. It is a dilemma not only for the men involved, although it affects them principally, but for the Government, who have to handle the practicalities.
It would perhaps be appropriate if the Minister reassured the men and their families who are going through a difficult time and having to make hard choices,. It is very easy for me to talk about those choices, but it is very hard for the men and their families to contemplate the future. The Government could help them by giving them the assurances that they seek and they could also protect their own position by spelling out clearly how they intend to tackle the problem.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Understandably, the debate has focused primarily on the issue of concessionary fuel, although the amendment in fact deals with the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and suggests that there should be a right of 12 months' notice of any proposal by employers to change their terms and conditions. The House will recognise that the TUPE regulations operate because we have included them in the Bill.
The amendment appears to give British Coal employees unique rights which are enjoyed by no other British employee in any other industry. I find it rather difficult to follow the argument that, in some way, employees of British Coal are wholly different from those in any other sector or working for any other firm. That dispenses with the main thrust of the amendment but, as I said, the debate has concentrated on concessionary fuel.
I understand the concern felt by the recipients of concessionary fuel who are inevitably facing uncertainty in


the run-up to privatisation. If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, and if it is within what I call the bounds of our adversarial system, I pay tribute to Opposition Members. At one stage, I thought that they would deliberately start a scare story and there was indeed some evidence of it a few months ago when we debated the paving Bill.
It was suggested that, somehow, the Government were determined to do away with people's right to concessionary fuel but I pay tribute to Opposition Members because they have not played that card. Having received assurances from me, through parliamentary answers and in Committee, they have worked hard to reassure many elderly people who were getting genuinely worried, and I thank them for that.
I repeat the assurance about concessionary fuel. After privatisation, the Government take responsibility for bringing concessionary fuel to those who are entitled to it and have not transferred to the successor companies. The successor companies will take responsibility for the entitlements of continuing employees. That is a clear undertaking, and responsibility for meeting the entitlement of continuing employees will be transferred to successor companies.
The question was asked—quite reasonably—whether successor companies might seek to renegotiate those entitlements. Of course they might, just as they might seek to renegotiate the terms of employment as they are entitled to do under the TUPE regulations. Many Opposition Members recognise that that might be in the interests of not only employers but employees.
6.45 pm
There is a recognition that some of the working practices currently followed by British Coal are not as conducive to competitive coal mining as they might be. The evidence for that is that the system of working and shifts applied at Asfordby, having been negotiated freely between the union, on behalf of the membership, and the management, has generally been recognised by everyone involved at the mine as giving them significant advantages.
I throw that out as an example because it shows that sensible negotiations can benefit employees and employers. It is not in anyone's interests to freeze for ever, or even for a lengthy and abnormal period, the particular terms of employment. However, I stress that TUPE will have to be followed and, if negotiations are to take place, they will have to do so in the context of TUPE.

Mr. Clapham: We are suggesting that there should be a ground level of terms and conditions, not that they be frozen for ever and a day. They should provide the level on which future negotiations would take place. In an industry which has varying degrees of technology, unless such protection is provided it is likely that high-technology pits will compete with low-technology pits and that the low-technology pits will survive because they are able to change the terms and conditions offered and pay low wages.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: We want them to survive.

Mr. Eggar: As my hon. Friend says, we want those pits to survive. I do not necessarily accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. Mines that are mined less

intensively might produce a return for the owner and benefit people working there. There are many examples in other parts of the world, most notably the United States, of different mining methods being used and providing competitively priced coal and safe, secure employment for the men involved.
Let us consider the practical examples in our own coalfields. The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), whose constituency includes the Point of Ayr colliery, knows very well that an inspired management approach, the full co-operation of the work force and the use of what is by British standards an abnormal mining method to start with, followed by the use of continuous miners and their adaptation for United Kingdom conditions, has made the pit much more competitive than most people ever thought it would be.
I accept the hon. Member's argument that it has also meant a reduction in the employment level. I ask him whether it is better that there be significant numbers of men, but not as many as previously, using a different method of mining but still producing coal and providing employment, or a uniform system with a greater number of men, which probably would have led by now to the closure of that pit because it could not be competitive.
Those are the questions to which Opposition Members must be prepared to respond. They must recognise that, in the private sector, there will inevitably be different methods of mining—different approaches—but there must be protection for the work force, and that is what TUPE give,. That is what the undertaking under the transfer gives with regard to concessionary coal.

Mr. Redmond: If one follows the Minister's arguments to their logical conclusion, he obviously agrees with the mining production that operates in Colombia, where the children—

Mr. Eggar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Redmond: It is cheaper coal—the Minister cannot have it both ways. If he is arguing that different methods would lower the costs, to follow his argument to its logical conclusion he agrees with children being used in Colombia to produce the coal that is being exported to this country.

Mr. Eggar: Although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman volunteered for the Committee, I know that he was not able to be a member. We have had a sensible debate and that type of argument is not in tune with the way in which the matter has been approached. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that.

Mr. Hain: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: I will give way, but we are trying to make progress.

Mr. Hain: I am grateful. On concessionary coal, will the Minister tackle the problem experienced by existing private miners, who have, in south Wales at least, a separate agreement which dates back to 1953 but which is being unilaterally abandoned, as I have described, by successive mines? Those miners are offered no protection under the Bill. How will he reassure them and their dependants and so on, who rely on concessionary fuel?

Mr. Eggar: As I said in Committee and have said frequently, the Government will take on responsibility for the concessionary help to those people who are entitled but


are not transferring to successor companies. That is clear. The rights of those people who go to successor companies are protected under TUPE and they are also protected by means of transfer schemes under the legislation. I accept, and I make it absolutely clear to the House, that then there is an opportunity for a renegotiation which has to involve the work force; it cannot be arbitrarily imposed by the employer. There may very well be changes at that stage.
The objective of the amendment, which is to give unique rights to the miners as against any other group of employees, is inappropriate. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. O'Neill: It is not our intention to push the amendment to a vote tonight, but the fact that we are withdrawing it does not mean that we agree with the Minister in any way. We regard the mining industry as unique. No other industry in the United Kingdom requires people to work in the bowels of the earth in darkness, in very difficult conditions, to extract a product that is of great importance to the country. The people who do that in that industry are unionised. They are organised. They have agreements.
There are people who work in the North Sea—in boats, fishing, and in the oil rigs, extracting oil. Virtually none of those people enjoy the privileges and benefits that accrue from being members of a trade union. Men working in extremely difficult conditions have been able to secure for themselves basic rights. We feel that those rights are sufficiently important to be enshrined during a very difficult or uncertain transitional period.
The minimalist conditions that are afforded by TUPE, which at least extend for three months, could be far less than that if management took advantage of the sleight of hand which our lax industrial relations legislation currently affords them. That is why we want to make it specific.
We argue that the unique character of the mining industry is also reflected in the terms and conditions and conciliation arrangements that have been built up since nationalisation, and we do not wish to see that thrown out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) put it, we want that established as part of the foundations of the next generation of coal ownership.
For those reasons, we feel that our argument is valid, and that it overrides the argument that we are assuming that mining should be treated as elitist because it is unique. We do not take that to be the case. We reject that argument. However, we recognise that there may well be other places where arguments such as those that we have made tonight can be advanced by people sympathetic to the cause of good industrial relations and to the benefits that all miners who work for British Coal currently enjoy—the entitlement to concessionary coal.
We believe that it is too important to have a guarantee for only three months, and we hope that it will be extended well beyond that. That is the minimum guarantee afforded by TUPE. With some regret, I will seek to withdraw the amendment, but not because we are satisfied by the Minister's assurances. As the Minister will be the first to admit, he is in no position to give assurances beyond the first three months. After that, the owners of the industry will not be responsible to the Government or to the House. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 78, line 30, leave out from 'State' to 'that' in line 32 and insert
`where it appears to him in the case of any restructuring scheme or modification agreement'.

No. 35, in page 78, line 34, leave out
`of the effects of the scheme to every such person'
and insert
`under this paragraph to every such person.
(1A) A notice to be given by the Secretary of State under this paragraph shall be given as soon as reasonably practicable after he makes the scheme or, as the case may be, gives his approval in relation to the agreement.'.
No. 36, in page 78, line 35, leave out
`in relation to any restructuring scheme'.
No. 37, in page 78, line 36, after 'scheme', insert
`or, as the case may be, of the agreement'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Schedule 4

TAXATION PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 83, line 20, after `transfer' insert—
`(aa) the predecessor ceases, by virtue of any provisions of a restructuring scheme coming into force at the same time as the transfer, to carry on any trade or part of a trade which is not transferred to the transferee,'.
No. 39, in page 83, line 23, after 'continued' insert
`or ceases to be carried on by the predecessor'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Clause 22

PENSIONS AND MINERS' WELFARE ORGANISATIONS

Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 18, line 14, at end add—
`() The Secretary of State may at any time before the restructuring date make a scheme for the transfer of property rights and liabilities from the Corporation to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation or a body or person to which its functions have been transferred under Section 12(3) of the Miners' Welfare Act 1952.
() A scheme made under subsection (4) above may only provide for the transfer of land in the freehold possession of the Corporation and associated property where:

(a) the land and any buildings thereon are leased to a Miners' Welfare, Charity or Friendly Society in pursuit of their charitable objectives; or
(b) the land and any buildings thereon have been consistently used for the pursuit of Miners' Welfare objectives during the past five years, regardless of whether or not any rent has been paid or demanded; or
(c) the land and any buildings thereon have been used for purposes which accord closely with the social, recreational, educational and cultural objectives of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation.

() Where a Miners' Welfare Charity or Friendly Society is unable to maintain recreational facilities it owns, either by freehold or leasehold, a local authority may agree to accept responsibility for maintenance of these facilities.
() Where a local authority considers whether to exercise its powers under subsection (6) of this section, it may apply to the Secretary of State for an increase in its standard spending assessment to cover the maintenance costs for a period not exceeding five years.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 23, in page 18, line 14, at end add—
'() The charitable aims of the successor body to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation established under subsection (3) of Section 12 of the 1952 Miners' Welfare Act shall incorporate the charitable aims of that Organisation.
() The Charity Commissioners shall have due regard to subsection (4) of this section when determining the allocation of residual funds left after the winding up of Miners' Welfare Trusts and Charities.'.

Mr. O'Neill: We now come to one of the aspects of our coal heritage. In the previous debate, the Minister queried the uniqueness of the coal industry. I do not want to labour that point, but some areas are not only scarred by the extraction of coal, but have many attractive features that exist largely as the creation of the coal industry, and especially of the coal miners. I think of the sports facilities, the welfare halls and the health facilities that have grown up as a consequence of the miners' aspirations and recognition of what ought to be reasonable social provisions in a civilised community.
Those of us who represent mining communities and former mining communities know of a variety of such facilities. We also know of the valuable work that is carried out by the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. This work extends to the provision of counselling and assistance for elderly and retired miners and support for injured miners. People injured in pit accidents in Yorkshire, for example, may be provided with special orthopaedic facilities. In all these fields, the miners themselves have been the main source of inspiration for developments and, in large measure, the sources of finance.
To an extent, this has been recognised. There have been protracted negotiations with the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. I shall hereafter refer to that organisation as CISWO, pronounced with a "S", in the certain knowledge that the next hon. Member to speak will pronounce the name with a "K". If we can agree to differ on that pronunciation, if on nothing else, I shall be more than satisfied.
7 pm
As a consequence of the strength of the argument put forward by the trustees of CISWO and the organisation's chief executive, Alan Vernon Jones, the Minister has gone some way towards meeting their case, although not as far as we should have liked. We recognise that there may very well be further work to be done in this area.
One of our concerns is that there is a gap between what has been promised by the Government to cover the current levels of expenditure and the cost of perceived requirements and that this gap may well be filled by the sale of some facilities. People assume that, in the main, welfare organisations have facilities that could be described, at worst, as drinking dens and, at best, as village social centres. It is true that, in some cases, the sales of alcoholic beverages are no longer sufficiently high to sustain social facilities. A number of difficulties have therefore arisen. In my own constituency, indeed, clubs have experienced problems.
It may well be that, in the face of these difficulties, it will be necessary to sell off some properties. What we do not want, and what these two amendments seek to guard against, is undue pressure on CISWO to dispose of properties that are of considerable value. Local authorities —in particular, those in Nottinghamshire—have identified the importance of the contribution made by CISWO facilities to the general sporting life of counties. In Nottinghamshire, provision extends far beyond football pitches to cricket grounds and so on.
I do not wish, as a Scotsman, to intrude on the private grief of the English about cricket, so I shall refer to the fact that, in Scotland, one of East Lothian's premier golf courses—hitherto called the Royal Musselburgh—is now

owned by CISWO. This links course, which is not very far from Muirfield, has been supported substantially by CISWO over the years.
My recollection is that it is not too far from the home of a Mr. Cowan, who is the chairman of the board of trustees of one of the coal industry pension funds. I believe that Mr. Cowan makes use of it. As this is being recorded in Hansard, I had better be careful, although I am covered by parliamentary privilege. In every part of the United Kingdom, there are sporting facilities that exist because of mining communities' support. I have spoken about England and about Scotland, and I am sure that in Wales there are rugby clubs that have benefited from such sponsorship and support.
We want to make clear our recognition that some properties may have to be disposed of as they are no longer useful. However, a number of facilities are of considerable use, and are of great significance to communities. Their future must not be jeopardised by what we consider inadequate financial arrangements between CISWO and the Minister. We are not complaining that the Minister is being tight-fisted. We are probably aware of the role of the Treasury in these matters. Indeed, the Minister has travelled a considerable distance from a somewhat unrealistic starting point. But he must go further.
The assets of social welfare organisations across the country should not necessarily be plundered to make up a financial shortfall. These facilities are part of the country's legacy. They are a manifestation of the vision of the men who worked in the coal industry and wanted a better life for their communities. In the absence of state funding and of a local government commitment, they made provision on their own behalf.
They did so by building welfare halls, which became community centres, where meals on wheels are served and where mother-and-toddler groups meet. In some instances, basic health services are provided on a collective basis at these locations. Such facilities are important—indeed, vital. They are part of the fabric of the community.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend may recall that, in the course of the debate, there has been mention of St. John Ambulance, and of that organisation's important contribution in some areas. I understand that it is assisted and accommodated by CISWO. Will my hon. Friend suggest to the Minister also the importance of maintaining the collieries' musical tradition, which is demonstrated not least by fine brass bands?

Mr. O'Neill: The brass bands make a contribution—whether as substantial as that of the pipe bands in Scotland, I shall leave to others to decide.
Every part of the British coal industry has sought to identify areas of need and has itself made provision. The passage of time has in some respects reduced need, but in certain areas CISWO has sought to make provision that ought to have been made by the community as a whole.

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has referred to the funding gap. Can he confirm that CISWO's current budget is about £2.5 million and that, even with the Minister's concessions, given in Committee—the trust fund and the £1 million a year for five years, about whose source we are still uncertain—we arrive at £1.4 million? In other words, there is a funding gap of more than £1 million.

Mr. O'Neill: It was my intention to finish on this point. I agree with my hon. Friend, although the position is actually worse than he has described. The financial and management arrangements of a number of organisations are at least overseen by CISWO at national level. In accounting terms, that can be an inestimable contribution.
Not only are auditors' and bookkeepers' fees met and their needs provided for, but there is also a steady hand on the tiller. Thus, organisations are able to go forward. Many of the people who run these self-help bodies—that is, in effect, what they are—do not have the financial skills to enable them to handle today's problems.
This is a very important issue, which goes to the heart of our concerns about sustaining coalfield communities. We can expect to hear, during the course of the debate, of a number of examples right across the British coal field. Facilities must not be put under the hammer to meet the funding gap, which has been identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) and which will, I am sure, be underlined by other hon. Members.
The discussions between the trustees of CISWO and the Minister should not be regarded as the end of the road. We want to see the pressure maintained so that even better terms and conditions may be secured. At this stage, we wish to put down markers about the seriousness of the problem as we see it and to bring home to Conservative Members, some of whom, I am sure, will echo our concerns, the major contribution of the social welfare organisation and its myriad facilities to coalfield communities, former and present. We do not wish to see this jeopardised as a result of a shortfall of several hundred thousand pounds per annum.

Mrs. Peacock: Let me begin with an apology. It was rather remiss of me yesterday not to place on record my interest in the coal industry. That original interest is some 18 months old. My more recent interest, which must be registered, is very well documented; because it is so well documented, and often commented on, I did not mention it initially. I wish to put that right now.
I welcome the funds already proposed for CISWO. When I visited its establishment in the constituency of the Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), I was very impressed by all the facilities that it provided. Those facilities are available not only to miners, but to their families. Some of our larger industrial companies provide sports facilities in a similar way, including some in my constituency.
I appreciate, however, that, despite the funds that have been announced, there will be a gap. Having seen many of the sports facilities, I feel that it would be a great shame if some of them had to be sold off to plug that gap. Many of my colleagues will say that the cost of such facilities should not be borne entirely by the businesses concerned; that will clearly have to be discussed later.
As well as sport and welfare facilities, CISWO provides brass bands. I am very partial to brass band music—although I should add that it is not provided only by colliery bands: in Yorkshire, we have some very good textile company bands, some of which are almost as famous as the colliery bands that may be cited by other hon. Members.
There is a more serious aspect of the matter. The pit has been the centre of many people's lives and work; another important feature of their existence has been the surrounding welfare, social and sporting provision. The

working part of a number of those lives is going, or has gone. In some areas, the surrounding facilities are all that are left.
Because the National Coal Board and, more recently, British Coal provided such good facilities, local authorities have not made similar provision in the areas involved. If all those facilities were lost, the authorities would have to start building them again. Surely, in the present climate—in which we encourage authorities not to spend too much —they should not be asked to undertake such expansion.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to add a little to what has already been decided. It is not clear yet where the extra £5 million a year will come from.

Mr. Ashton: I have represented a mining constituency for 25 years. One of my most stunning experiences was attending a widows' tea at Manton colliery two or three years ago. It was attended by 249 widows from a single pit area; the youngest was about 28 and the oldest about 88. It was an astonishing experience.
Nothing brings home the true price of coal with more impact than attending a miners' welfare occasion of that kind. In such communities men die much younger than women, but the existence of a community spirit and welfare facilities means that no one forgets the widows. In the inner cities, pensioners are found three weeks after dying of hypothermia because they could not afford a bag of coal and there was no one to look after them. Pit villages —or towns, rather; some towns in my constituency have populations of between 8,000 and 10,000—have an enormous, fantastic welfare facility.
The tradition continues. It centres on welfare provision, but there will also be a couple of football pitches, tennis courts, a bowling green and perhaps some pigeon fanciers in the neighbourhood; the whole arrangement has been a tremendous crutch for people living in mining towns. Indeed, it has formed the bedrock of their existence. These people grew up together, went to school together, married women living on the next street and went down the welfare together on a Saturday night. Their grandmothers and grandads went for the bingo. Everyone knew everything.
The welfare is handed down from generation to generation. It provides pre-school playgroups and maternity clinics; if the pit is closed, unemployed benefit is paid there, because the labour exchange—or, rather, the unemployment benefit exchange—may be eight miles away, and there may be only one bus an hour. The welfare centre is the focal point of the pit town or village, and its closure along with that of the pit would be a disaster.

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend has mentioned many sections of mining communities. I know that he has taken an interest in youth clubs in various pit villages. As pits close, we must find opportunities for young people; welfare organisations provide such opportunities. Unless Nottinghamshire, for instance, receives more generous support in that regard, we may face real problems.

Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There have been other changes. At one time, everyone who lived in a pit town or village worked in the pit; 20p, or 50p, was stopped from their wages each week to fund the whole business. Now, following requests for voluntary redundancies, the situation has changed. Until the recent closure of two faces at Harworth, in my constituency, it had 600


employees; now, only about 40 people live in the town, and those who do not live there are not particularly interested. They will drive 10 miles to another pit village, and, because they may not contribute to the upkeep of the welfare organisation from their own wages, it starts to decline.
Fewer and fewer people use the bar facilities, because young people tend to go down to the discos in Doncaster or the nightclubs in Sheffield. There are still wonderful facilities for pensioners who want to play dominoes, but if the beer prices go up they cannot afford to go in. If the prices remain the same, the loan from the brewery cannot be paid off. It is a vicious circle.
We are not suggesting that everyone should have free beer, or even cheap beer. We are saying that these wonderful sporting and entertainment facilities must be preserved. My heart bleeds when I visit the site of Worksop colliery, which was closed about four years ago. The grass on the cricket pitch is now 2 ft high, the sport pavilions have been vandalised and gipsies have moved on to the site and parked their caravans. Because the pit no longer exists, there is no organisation to employ a groundsman. The council wants to maintain the facilities, but it has no cash: its standard spending assessment has not been increased to take account of the position.
CISWO is not just a one-off for each pit; it is an organisation. The coalfield communities and local councils must get together, with the Minister's assistance, and form a co-operative—a non-profit-making company that can do CISWO's work if necessary. A sports ground requires more than a tractor to cut the grass for half a day a week; it needs a tractor to go around perhaps 10 more grounds in the area with special equipment. An area organisation is required, rather than individual action involving individual councils.
The Select Committee on National Heritage, of which I am a member, interviewed the east midlands sports council on Thursday. It is very concerned about this colossal waste of sporting facilities. In Nottingham, for instance, the kids at Hyson green are desperate for a playing field. They experience all the inner-city problems of drugs, car stealing, rent boys and vice while, just a few miles away, magnificent sports facilities are going to waste. That is crazy, in view of the unique heritage involved.
A long list of international footballers originated from the pit villages: even Barnsley could name a team of 11 who were born in the area, and probably played for England. We had cricketers such as Freddy Trueman and Larwood; the whole culture of where they came from is simply vanishing. There are floodlit football pitches in my area, but the clubs cannot afford to switch the floodlights on. They have wonderful facilities, yet they cannot afford to run them.
International cyclists, such as Tommy Simpson who wore the yellow jersey right across Europe and won the tour de France, came from mining villages. Those villages and towns are beginning to experience the inner-city problems of crime, stealing cars and vandalism. People would use up their energy working down the pit. When they came up at night, they were so tired that they had two or three pints of beer and a game of snooker before going to bed at 10 o'clock—after all, they had to get up at 6

o'clock in the morning. The sporting facilities that took up their strength and energy at weekends are being vandalised and are a disgrace to us.
The miners' welfare is the hub of the village, not just for the footballers and the kids; it provides the pensioners' Christmas teas and chicken and the few quid they give them and day trips to the seaside in the summer. We are talking about the destruction not of a job but of a way of life and a culture that has continued for 100 years. We are asking the Government to accept the amendment because the coalfield communities want it. They are asking not for a handout, but for the continuation of an organisation that can bring together the facilities and continue the culture of mining areas.

Mr. Beith: If I have an interest to declare, it is simply that the Lynemouth miners' welfare institute allows me a room for my constituency surgery; that is a useful facility. I ask the Government not to add to the disaster of pit closures the collapse of facilities in pit villages at a time when young people desperately need them.
I seek some greater assurance from the Government. They must give the mining and coalfield communities time to build up new sources of support for sporting facilities —not least from the companies that might take over pits and produce new jobs. We do not want to frighten companies off by giving them a shopping list, but we should approach them to see whether we can get support from them for facilities which in the past were supported by the coal industry and the miners themselves.
In the parts of Northumberland that were mining areas, sports fields, welfare institutes and other associated facilities, many of them well used, are developing partnerships with the local authorities. Castle Morpeth council, which covers Lynemouth, Ellington, Widdrington and Linton, has had to take on more responsibility for what in the past have been miners' welfare facilities; the partnership is developing, but it is a painstaking and difficult process, particularly given that local authority resources are strained. We desperately need breathing space to develop more partnerships so that we do not lose the facilities.
Sporting facilities are particularly important. We need to be able to offer them to the many youngsters who feel that there is nothing left in the village except crime or messing around on street corners and getting involved in vandalism and trouble. Sport is a constructive alternative activity and we ought to keep it available.
As someone who was brought up on bands and who played in a brass band in an ex-mining village in my youth, I have the privilege of being the president of the Ellington colliery band. We are determined to keep the band in existence, whatever happens to the colliery in future. It provides a greatly valued community facility for all the events it attends, as do bands in all the mining areas.
Many extremely good bands are ex-colliery bands which grew up in the coal industry, but, because of the price of instruments, for example, some smaller communities will not find it easy to find the resources for that wonderful voluntary musical activity in which such high standards are achieved unless they continue to receive some support from the traditional mining industry welfare provisions.
Those important social facilities are needed more than ever in communities where mining has either gone completely or is much reduced in terms of the numbers that


it employs. Quite a number of companies are already showing willingness to sponsor community activities in such areas. In my constituency, Alcan sponsors local activities, as do Northern Electric. Racal Decca, a company that does not even employ people locally, is now backing shore-based watersports in Amble. We hope to find other sources of business backing in future.
We ask the Government to give us time and to give us the opportunity to keep the existing facilities by ensuring that all that CISWO has built up does not disappear overnight because it does not have the funding to continue.

Ms Joan Walley: I shall be brief as I know that time is limited. Like the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), I wish to declare an interest. Entered in "Who's Who" under my name is the fact that I am honorary president of the Fegg Hayes sports and social club, formerly the Fegg Hayes miners' welfare club. I want to draw to the attention of the House what happened to that club as an example of what could happen if our amendment is not accepted.
During yesterday's debate, we heard an impassioned plea from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Ashton: What about the hon. Member for Bassetlaw?

Ms Walley: My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) also made a valuable contribution; I put that on record too.
We heard an impassioned plea from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover who said that the coalfield communities are dying on their feet. In addition to all the waste and dereliction of disused mines, with people becoming unemployed and not being retrained because of lack of support from British Coal Enterprise, we face the further waste and disruption that will no doubt come to our communities if we do nothing about clubs such as Fegg Hayes, which was a miners' welfare club supported by CISWO.
Anybody who was born and brought up in a mining community knows only too well that the sports and welfare clubs are the heart of the community. We have heard about various clubs and sports facilities. We really cannot tolerate buildings and sports fields being left to die. I read with great interest that, in the Standing Committee—in which I did not participate—the Minister made some concessions concerning the long-term future of CISWO, but they are not enough.
Three years ago the Fegg Hayes miners' welfare, which is now the Fegg Hayes sports and social club, was about to go into liquidation. The trustees, even with the support of CISWO, could not keep that community centre going with all its facilities. At the eleventh hour they came, to me, as the local Member of Parliament, to see whether there was some way in which it could be saved.
As I pointed out yesterday, company law overrides charity law. Only the Charity Commission stepping in at the eleventh hour and a brewery being prepared to come in and save it stopped the miners welfare club closing down. Since then, it has gone from strength to strength and it continues to be an important part of the local community.
If the House does not accept the amendment, and if the Minister cannot give the House an assurance that there will be long-term funding, how can we be sure that similar facilities to those of Fegg Hayes will survive? We certainly

need an audit so that we know where all the different sports and social clubs are. We urgently need co-operation between CISWO and local authorities and the coalfield communities to save the land and the buildings and to ensure that, instead of the waste and dereliction, those clubs have some future in the aftermath of the terrible effects of pit closures.
I hope that in his reply the Minister will take into account what happened in Fegg Hayes and give us an assurance that what happened there can happen elsewhere in the country too.

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being called. I apologise to the Minister for my previous remarks, which he stated lowered the standard of the debate. I was trying to fetch it down to your level.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): My level?

Mr. Redmond: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but one has grave reservations about whether the Minister understands what the coal industry privatisation involves.
I want to deal with two separate issues. The first concerns the paraplegic service in Pontefract, which does an excellent job, as did the Firbeck hospital and the convalescent homes. Better health treatment and the improvement in mining conditions mean that people are living longer. Miners retire a damn sight sooner and will, we hope, live a little longer. That shows that there is a need for convalescent homes where the lads and lasses can go to recuperate and enjoy themselves for a fortnight each year.
The amount of cash offered by the Minister for Energy is not enough. He is trying to lead us to believe that he is compassionate. If that is so, he will ensure that much more money is made available. Once we start to reduce the facilities available, it will be a downward spiral. There is a need for more money. Regrettably, he needs to argue with the Treasury to get that money.
My second point deals with the welfare organisations in mining villages. They are part of the mining heritage and of the culture in mining communities. The lads tossed money in and kept the local community alive when no one else was interested. They showed their foresight by attempting to provide facilities that would be used by all in the community. Regrettably, because of the decline of the coal industry in the past few years, the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation is in an embarrassing financial position.
The local authority in Doncaster has reached an agreement on maintenance and other matters with nine of the welfare organisations in Doncaster. It costs the authority about £250,000 to help maintain facilities and ensure that they remain available.
I do not have to tell the Minister that the Department of the Environment is seeking to bring about the demise of local government by placing cash restraints on local communities and local authorities. Given those restraints, there is no way in which local authorities can raise enough funds via the council tax to ensure that those facilities remain. There will, therefore, be a decline in the facilities available.
Already I have been approached by old age groups in Rossington, where the pit was closed by British Coal, although I hope that it will reopen. Because of the lack of


funds at the colliery, there is a proposal to charge groups that use facilities provided by the welfare organisations. We are not in the game of ensuring that people in the twilight years of their lives, who enjoy a little get together in the week and the facilities provided by the welfare organisations, should have to depend on charity. Charity does not exist any more. To be charitable, one must be able to afford to give to charity. There is, therefore, a problem.
I ask the Minister not to consider the short term, what the cash on offer does, and the market forces that the Government operate, but to consider the long-term needs of those communities. Will he ensure that if anything should happen as a result of CISWO being given charitable status—which it seeks—and having cash flow problems, local authorities will manage the facilities? People in the mining communities raised the cash in the first place to provide facilities for future generations and the Minister is beholden to ensure that those facilities remain well into the next century.

Mr. Eggar: I think that I made it clear in Committee and when I wrote to hon. Members on both sides of the House that I fully recognise the important role of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation and other welfare organisations.
Sometimes we make a mistake when we identify CISWO with the welfare organisations, many of which are fiercely independent and rely only to a limited extent on the services provided by CISWO. Other organisations rely on it to a greater extent. It is one of the strengths of the social welfare system in coal mining communities that each region, and in many cases each village, has developed services, health facilities and buildings which are particularly appropriate for those villages and often very small communities.
The House is aware of the announcement on funding that I made in Committee. It might be helpful if I report to the House a discussion that I had with many members of the CISWO council on 17 March. I do not think that I am misconstruing what they said to me when I say that they gave a cautious welcome to the idea of replacing CISWO with a charitable trust. The council has said that it will examine how it can make a contribution to securing the future of CISWO services by raising external funds—a point raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—and recognises that a restructuring of CISWO assets may be necessary to make better use of the funds available within the structure and that it may also have to make administrative savings.
I am sure that the House will agree that, in the light of the CISWO response, the best way forward is a constructive dialogue. Its council members will keep in close touch with my officials during coming weeks and, if necessary, I shall meet them again.

Mr. Clapham: The formula involves an endowment of £10 million, followed by one of £5 million, to be made up of a payment of £1 million each year. Will the Minister confirm that that £1 million will come from the private sector once the industry is privatised? Will he tell the House the mechanism that will be set up to ensure that private companies contribute?

Mr. Eggar: The finance will come from the private companies. We have not yet decided how that money will

be conveyed and calculated. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned that it may be a royalty and that it will therefore be related to production, which has been one of difficulties with British Coal, I assure him that we are concerned about the sum and the delivery of that £1 million per year rather than about the mechanism. I assure him that the sum will be £1 million.
I do not think that I am misconstruing the attitude of the CISWO council when I say that it accepted the need for change. It would not be appropriate, therefore, to accept amendment No. 23, which locks CISWO and its successors into its current charitable aims, which the council would not want.
Amendment No. 22 relates to physical assets. Much has been made, understandably, of sporting facilities. I yield to no one in my belief in the importance of team sports. I can tell the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) that my preference is cricket rather than golf—not that golf is a team sport. I may add that part of the reason for recent developments in English cricket is that village cricket does not play as large a role in the life of this country as it once did, which has shown through in the quality of county and English cricket.
The amendment calls for the transfer of assets to CISWO. Most of the sports facilities are organised not by that body but by local welfares, many of which would be appalled at the prospect of their facilities being run by CISWO, centrally or regionally. The amendment refers also to freehold land and properties, but much of it is held on long leases.
I acknowledge the importance to local communities of identifying land holdings. Many are not entirely sure of the basis on which they hold land—whether it has been gifted to them by British Coal, a lease exists, or a rental agreement existed that has not been maintained. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) nods, so obviously she has experienced that with her own welfares.
I asked British Coal to identify the land which it believes it owns and which is currently used for coal industry social welfare purposes, including recreation. We shall make decisions on the disposal of the land identified, who should receive the benefit of the use of that land and any safeguards required.
A point that arises from the speech of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is that some land is no longer actively used for recreational purposes, and is unlikely to be so used in future—because of a shift in the population or other reasons. We must be careful not to build in a totally inflexible system because some land—particularly that not used for some time—could readily be used by the community in other ways. It could be put back to recreational use, developed and so on.
I want to be sensitive to local needs on the basis of the best local information that I can obtain. As I made clear in Committee, I am wary of imposing from the centre a series of rules that, although they make sense in theory, do not work in practice locally.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Eggar: I will give way—but not to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), because he has only just entered the debate. I will give way first to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw.

Mr. Ashton: The Minister is right about the need for flexibility. There is no real demand for some playing fields


because of population movement. If the Minister will give an assurance that discussions will take place before the Bill returns from another place, I will withdraw the amendment in the hope of reaching agreement.

Mr. Eggar: I explained that we asked British Coal to draw up a list of assets. We have powers under the Bill to safeguard the use of land, where we are clear that British Coal owns it. I am confident that we can reach a series of arrangements without laying down hard-and-fast rules in legislation.

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Eggar: No. I am trying to respond to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw.

Mr. Skinner: I have just one question.

Mr. Eggar: I am still trying to respond to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, and I will then give way to the hon. Members for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North—all of whom have been present for the debate. If I do not answer the question of the hon. Member for Bolsover in that way, I shall then give way to him.
I am confident that we can safeguard the genuine and current recreational use of land, but I ask the hon. Member for Bassetlaw to allow us to do that in a flexible and sensitive way.

Mr. Eric Clarke: One cannot pigeon-hole every case. There are examples in my constituency of recreational open space in an old mining village that the community or local authority wants to revitalise. There are periods when people move away—but when they get their assets together again, they move back and want to revitalise the area. If recreational and open spaces are surrendered to the highest bidder, that land might be used for the wrong reasons. It should be redeveloped in conjunction with the local people and local authority, who should have the first option to purchase—not the highest bidder. I hope that the Minister accepts that principle

Mr. Eggar: I cannot quite go down that route. Even when CISWO wanted to redeploy an asset such as a convalescent home that was not fully utilised, it had difficulty reaching an internal agreement. I do not want to misconstrue CISWO's response, but I made the point to that body that when it is reconstituted as a charitable trust, it must be able to take difficult decisions. That picks up the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
I want to act as sympathetically as possible, but I suspect that, from time to time, some recreational land and buildings may have to be sold against local vested interest but for the greater good of social welfare within mining communities. That will not be easy, and the hon. Member for Midlothian and others will probably have to take the lead in local cases. We must not go against the whole thrust of the work of CISWO and the welfares in order to respond to local needs. If we impose much from the centre, there will be a loss of benefit.
Does the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North still want to intervene?

Ms Walley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Eggar: In that case, I give way to the hon. Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Skinner: I heard the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and the ensuing exchanges. The Minister said that, given some flexibility, most land would be retained. Will he undertake an audit of CISWO's land and establish how much of it is used for recreational and other purposes? If 80 per cent. of that land is used for football, cricket and so on, will the Minister guarantee that he will write into the Bill that no less than 80 per cent. will continue to be used for recreational purposes? That way, any land over and above that not being used for recreational and social purposes could be sold off.

Mr. Eggar: I can say that I have asked for—I use the word loosely—an "audit" of the land that British Coal believes that it owns.

Mr. Skinner: Not all the land.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. CISWO and the welfares may also own land and assets. I do not want to get into the business of telling CISWO what to do with the land and assets that it owns. I am concerned only with the land and assets that British Coal owns, or believes that it owns. I suspect that there will be some dispute over title.
The next stage is to look carefully at that land and identify that which is used currently and actively for recreational purposes. We then need to see how we can provide the best assurance that the land will be retained for those purposes. Again, I say do not let us lock ourselves into the concept that it is to everybody's advantage, so to speak, that we should guarantee that a football pitch will for ever be a football pitch. The changing age profile in villages, for example, may well mean that people want to start playing bowls. Or the growing attraction of tennis may mean that, if they can raise the money for a tennis court, they should be able to redeploy the land. They might want to sell off part of the land to maximise its use. We must be careful that we do not freeze everything for current uses.

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as this is an important point. The community, not CISWO, owns the land and facilities. Therefore, CISWO is beholden to ensure that it serves the community and not become some quango that is there to make a fast buck and sell the land for profit. I hope that the Minister will accept the community's need, not some small body, to make the decisions about future needs.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman exposes the difficulties that I have when I try to respond to ideas of legislation. Some local welfares might be willing to have CISWO in a fiduciary capacity in some way; others, frankly, would not have it anywhere near the place. If I try to impose one system, which is the thrust of the Opposition amendment, I would please one group but offend another, so I plead for an acceptance that a flexible approach, as locally based as possible, is the right way forward. I believe that the way that I have tried to proceed should command the respect of the House.

Mr. O'Neill: We are grateful to the Minister for taking interventions and making a telling point in what was a fairly long speech. He has gone some way at least to


meeting some of our concerns. But we have to be guided in some respects by the response of the trustees of CISWO, who gave his proposition a cautious welcome.
The Minister said that the dialogue is continuing. It cannot continue ad infinitum. There has to be an end. It is clear that there are more things to be played for at this stage. We hope, therefore, that he is now more aware of some of the problems, because some of them emerged during the discussions that have been under way since October or November of last year. For those reasons, I shall seek the leave of the House to withdraw our amendment in the expectation that, if necessary, it will be looked at elsewhere. I am sure that the Minister will accept that, if we do not get satisfaction through legislation, there will be debates on the Floor of the House later this year to ensure that if the transfer of ownership takes place, CISWO and the communities that depend on the welfare organisations, regardless of the umbrella under which they operate, are represented and protected in the way that we see fit.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 5

PENSIONS PROVISION IN CONNECTION WITH RESTRUCTURING

Mr. Bell: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 101, line 25, at end insert—
'(aa) for securing that, if modifications are made pursuant to sub-paragraph (a) above, provision shall be made for an independent person to have power to appoint and remove the chairman of the trustees who shall himself be an independent person, and for this purpose a person is independent if—

(i) he is not entitled to any pension right which gives rise to a pension obligation under the existing scheme;
(ii) he is not employed in the Civil Service of the Crown, whether in an established capacity or not, and whether for the whole or part of his time;
(iii) he is not a member of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom; and
(iv) he is not a member of the House of Commons; and the period of appointment of the chairman shall be for a fixed term not exceeding five years.'.

Over the years, we have been given a number of assurances in relation to pensions. In October 1991, the former Secretary of State for Energy, Lord Wakeham, said on the privatisation of the coal industry:
the pension interests of both current and past employees of the British Coal Corporation will be properly safeguarded.
Further assurances were given on the same subject by the Minister for Energy on 29 June 1992. He said:
I say quite categorically that we are committed to safeguarding pensions, we will safeguard pensions, and we will use the most appropriate method to do just that.
A few days later, he gave a clear and unequivocal commitment that the British Coal pension fund would not be ripped off. He made the same statement when we discussed the matter further on the Floor of the House.
The Government have been helpful to the Opposition and interested parties in providing a series of documents covering the issue of pensions.
I now refer specifically to amendment No. 17, which has the purpose of inserting a new sub-paragraph (aa) that requires the Secretary of State to make proposals for the appointment of an independent chairman of trustees if he exercises the powers envisaged in sub-paragraph (a). That would enable the Secretary of State to make arrangements

for the appointment of trustees. The current mine workers' pension scheme trustees believe it vital that beneficiaries of the scheme can feel confident that the chairman of trustees is able to exercise his or her responsibility without fear of Government pressure or interference.
Officials of the Department of Trade and Industry have made it clear to the present trustees that they envisage that new trustees will exercise full fiduciary responsibilities. We believe that the Government should welcome this opportunity to demonstrate that the new trustees will be able to act responsibly. In some respects, it should be an advantage to the Government to concede that point, as they would gain greater support and acceptance from the beneficiaries and would also be assured that an independent chairman would have to pay due regard to the guarantor's interests as well that of beneficiaries. The guarantor is likely to play a significant role in the working of the scheme.
In our view, an independent chairman would offer a measure of counterbalance. In addition, it is suggested that the period of appointment of the chairman could be limited to a fixed term, perhaps not exceeding five years. We are aware that there are continuing negotiations with the Government on that point. We are aware that the trustees would prefer a body, independent of the Secretary of State, to make the appointment. Our proposed amendment suggests certain criteria for independence that would have to be met by the appointer and appointee precluding any civil servant, Minister, Member of the House of Commons or beneficiary of the scheme. Therefore, in our view, it remains possible that the Government would accept such a condition and therefore the points are made in a non-partisan, non-political way. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I shall be brief, as the Minister gave guarantees in Committee. I was a trustee of the miners' pension fund for many years. We took the role very seriously and educated ourselves as best we could as lay members of a sophisticated and successful pension fund. One aspect that was always underlined to us was that, although we were appointed to represent the members of the NUM—there was a UDM member in the company, as well as the trustees who were appointed by British Coal —we were legally independent. In other words, we were responsible as individuals, not to our organisation, but to the fund itself. That was underlined on every occasion by our legal advisers and other people. The appointment of this person is dear to the hearts of the people who are in the fund.
It was once said that the lifeboats on a ship belong to the crew, on a cargo ship—or otherwise to the passengers as well. The pension fund belongs to its members. That is the way I look at it. I hope that all the cynicism attached to the Maxwell fiasco has made us very cautious. People outside, especially members of pension schemes, are certainly extremely worried in case something in the Bill will in some way undermine their rights so that someone will be able to cream off money. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to reassure us.
The amendments would be in no way detrimental to the Bill; they will simply add to the assurances demanded by the pensioners, of whom there are a great many. In fact, there is a huge army of them out there. The Minister should think of the former size of the industry and then of the number of pensioners watching closely to see how the


matter is handled. If I go to any public function, or indeed any gathering of people of a certain age in my constituency, the subject of pensions, especially miners' pensions, raises its head nine times out of 10.
8 pm
The protection requested for the post-privatisation pensions agreement is reasonable, as is the limiting of the Secretary of State's discretionary powers to the period before 31 December 1995. We ask for a limit. We do not say that there is no responsibility, or that the Secretary of State is not answerable to the House, but there must be a curb on the laissez-faire independent powers.
The final provision would impose a duty to act in good faith towards the beneficiaries of the pension schemes when using the power to act in the national interest. There could be a conflict of interests here, but I hope that the balance will lean towards the individual pensioner or pensioners.
I am proud of the fact that I was a member of the fund for years. It has been most successful, and the people who ran it and invested in it, anti the CIN, have something to be proud of. They were not only successful financially but created a lot of jobs. They invested in this country and elsewhere to create work with risk capital. I am proud of the fact that they used the money. They did not buy art treasures, stick them in a vault and watch them appreciating. They invested the money where it was needed. I am certain that the members of the pension fund wanted the money to be used in that way.
I hoped that things would continue in that way, but the Government have not accepted that idea. The fund could have been treated in such a way that someone who worked for any of the privatised companies could still be a fully fledged member of the pension fund. But the Government said no, froze the fund at that point and gave the new emerging companies the right to negotiate with someone outwith the fund. I see no logic in that, apart from ideological logic. I thought that people would have been invited into a worthwhile thriving pension fund—but that is the way the cookie crumbles.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Eggar: The whole House recognises that discussions are continuing between the Government and the trustees of the two schemes. Progress is still being made, and I hope that nobody in the House will press for a detailed disclosure of exactly where we are.
On the substance of the amendment, the Government recognise that the chairman should carry the confidence of the fellow trustees and the beneficiaries. We also recognise the fact that the Government-appointed trustees, like any trustees, will owe fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries of the scheme. That is most important.
The Department is currently discussing with the trustees the arrangements for appointing the chairman. That is one of the issues that is taking up a fair amount of time. I hope that we shall be able to resolve the matter by the full agreement of the trustees in a way satisfactory both to them and to the Government, so I recommend that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the Minister's response, and for the interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), who cast his net rather on the wide side for amendment No. 17. Nevertheless, he raised

the subject that preoccupies many members of the pension fund, and certainly those who are the trustees. The question is: who owns the pension fund?

Ms Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people involved, especially the trustees, have put a great deal of work into trying to impress upon the Minister the importance of independence? If there is no independent advice and no independent chairman, how can we have trust? I wish to bring to my hon. Friend's attention the great work that has been done on this matter, especially by Mr. Joe Wills, in my constituency.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has clearly taken a strong interest in the matter. The Minister has mentioned the importance of having an independent chairman, and in Committee we were told that the negotiations were still continuing. We had hoped that by this stage they might have been completed, which would have enabled the Government to table amendments on pensions for Report. We are aware that the negotiations are still continuing, and we are in close touch with the trustees of the various pension funds. I hope, as the Minister probably hopes—no doubt he will wish to take into account the comments made both in Committee and tonight—that the issue will be settled and the negotiations completed, so that the Government will be able to table amendments in another place.
On the basis of the Minister's comments and of the interventions by my hon. Friends, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Bell: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 102, line 37, at end insert—
'(10A) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this paragraph shall not be exercisable at any time after 31st December 1995.'.
We are concerned that any arrangements entered into at privatisation for securing pension benefits should be as watertight as possible and should not provide an easy way to alter the position in future. The amendment would impose a time limit on the regulation-making powers.
It is accepted that, to secure an orderly transition to privatisation, it is necessary and proper for the Secretary of State to have powers to modify the scheme. However, the Bill as drafted places no limit on the time during which the Secretary of State can exercise those powers. That would enable a future Secretary of State to modify the scheme and undo elements of the arrangements agreed at the time of privatisation—although we accept that there is a restriction to prevent the power being used to reduce accrued benefits.
The exercise of the powers in that way would clearly be contrary to the original purpose. The insertion of proposed subsection (10A) would prevent the Secretary of State's powers from being exercisable at any time after 31 December 1995. That would allow a reasonable period within which any drafting errors could be remedied. We accept that it may not be possible to get the necessary modifications right the first time, but our amendment would reassure the beneficiaries that no power of modification would be extant in the long term. After 31 December 1995 further modification of the scheme could be achieved only through the use of the scheme's amendment power. On that basis I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Eggar: I shall first I pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) at the end of his comments about the previous amendment. Yes, in an ideal world, I would have liked to come to the House with agreed amendments to the Bill. It has not proved possible to reach agreement with the trustees. It has taken longer than we anticipated. I very much hope that we shall reach agreement, and shall therefore be able to go to the other place with amendments in due course.
The hon. Gentleman has presented the substance of the amendment fairly. There are restrictions on the ability to use the existing proposed powers to reduce accrued benefits. It is generally recognised that there needs to be a time during which discussions can take place in case there have been any oversights during the drafting of the arrangements. The precise length of time is still under discussion. The length of time suggested by the hon. Gentleman's amendment is not entirely out of the ball park of what is being discussed. I am not sure that we shall agree on that particular period, but that sort of concept is being considered.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for responding in kind to the amendment. He was gracious enough to do the same in Committee. We welcome the various assurances that he gave on the previous amendment, the question of a time scale and the hope that we may see amendments to the Bill tabled in other place.
On the basis of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Bell: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 102, line 49, at end insert 'and
(c) so much of any pension obligation arising under the scheme as derives either from modifications of the scheme made after the restructuring date or from any surplus of assets of the scheme over what is required for meeting pension obligations under the scheme.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it is convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 20, in page 107, line 6 at beginning insert
'Subject to sub-paragraph (5A) below,'
No. 21, in page 107, line 18 at end insert—
'(5A) Where any modification by virtue of this schedule of any existing scheme confers any powers on the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State shall, in exercising those powers, owe the same duty of good faith to all persons who are entitled to any pension rights which give rise to pension obligations under the scheme as an employer would owe in exercising similar powers under an occupational pension scheme.'.

Mr. Bell: Amendment No. 18 deals with the post-privatisation benefits improvement aspect of pensions. One of our major concerns is that, under the proposed arrangements, it would be possible for the value of pensions payable to beneficiaries to be reduced in cash terms from year to year because of the way in which beneficiaries are to share future surpluses. The draft scheme and rules in the Bill provide for half of any such surplus to be placed in a bonus augmentation fund from which any additional benefits would be paid. As the proposals presently stand, the bonus payments will not be guaranteed and may be withdrawn following subsequent actuarial valuation, thus causing the value of pension payments to fall despite the existence of the guarantee. In

the past, benefits to pensioners from surpluses have become a part of the normal pension and been subsequently indexed.
8.15 pm
We therefore consider that the present proposals fall too far short of what beneficiaries may reasonably expect, based on the historical position. The amendment is something of a halfway house, as it would include in the definition of principle pension obligations any payments made from the bonus augmentation fund, so that they would be covered by the Government guarantee. Amendment No. 18 does not require the index linking of such payments to be covered by the guarantee in paragraph 2(11)(b) of schedule 5. That would operate only in paragraph 2(11)(a) and not extend to the provision set out in the amendment. I hope that the House will excuse me for being technical about the amendment, but its importance is understood by the Government.
We are aware that the trustees are continuing to have discussions with the Government on that issue, but I do not believe that the trustees are entirely happy that the proposals as they stand are sufficient to provide proper security for pensioners, and think that a position that leaves open the possibility of pensions being reduced is unacceptable. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) has already commented from his own experience on the benefit and importance of such a scheme.
Amendment No. 20 deals with the duty of good faith of the Secretary of State. Paragraph 5(5) of the schedule provides the Secretary of State with powers to direct the trustees in the exercise of their duties so as to have proper regard to the national interest. That power could be exercised in relation to scheme investments, actuarial assumptions and the distribution of the beneficiaries' share of surpluses. The provisions of that paragraph are also reflected in the draft scheme and rules, although they are subject to continuing discussions with the Government. Again, discussions are continuing between the Government and the trustees.
Amendment No. 21 would add a new sub-paragraph, (5A), which provides that the Secretary of State owes a "duty of good faith", analogous to that owed by employers in an occupational pension scheme, to all persons entitled to pension rights under the scheme. The employer acts as a guarantor in most final salary occupational pension schemes by ensuring that the scheme is adequately funded. By that method, the members' benefits are properly safeguarded. In carrying out his role under the pension scheme, the employer is entitled to protect his own interests, but in so doing he must not act contrary to his duty of good faith to the members.
Labour Members feel that it is appropriate to reflect that balance on the face of the Bill, with the Government as guarantor to the scheme. It is vital that some acknowledgement of the interests of the beneficiaries should be included in either the Bill or the draft schemes and that paragraph 5(5) should be substantially amended.
We acknowledge that the Government, as guarantor, will have an interest in investment policy, but feel that that should not extend to being able to direct investment policy without regard to the beneficiaries. Any power for the Government to intervene should be tightly drawn and be used only in extreme circumstances, allowing the trustees in normal circumstances to set investment policy in the light of the scheme's experience. We do not accept that the


Government should have power to interfere in actuarial assumptions. Those should be a matter for the scheme's actuary in consultation with the trustees and should not have any influence on the distribution of surplus to the beneficiaries.
If I may use a Latin phrase, which will no doubt please my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), who, although he is not in his place, graced our Committee proceedings with lengthy words and a great knowledge of the English language, amendment No. 21 lives or falls by the principle of res ipsa loquitur—it speaks for itself.

Ms Rachel Squire: I shall speak in support of all the amendments covering pension provision, but especially in support of amendments Nos. 20 and 21, because the future pension provision for retired miners, those currently working and those yet to be employed is of great concern to the miners and families in my constituency. As hon. Members will know, Longannet is the only deep mine left in Scotland. It borders on my constituency and I have yet to meet a family in west Fife who do not have some past or present connection with the mining industry. Given that, at one time, there were 66 pits in Fife, that is hardly surprising.
Only two years after the Government came into office, there were still 4,000 miners employed in Fife. Now there is less than a quarter of that in the whole of Scotland. The statistics mean that hundreds, if not thousands, of miners and their families in my constituency are concerned about the Government's proposals for the two pension schemes.
It is encouraging to hear mention of the assurances that the Government are giving and of the discussions that are taking place with trustees, but the people of west Fife are deeply distrustful of promises and assurances given by the Government. I shall explain why. First, my view and that of my constituents is that if the Government had the genuine national interest that is referred to in the pension proposals, they would not have introduced the Bill in the first place. I place on record my deep and total opposition to coal privatisation because of the effect that it will have on pay, pensions and safety. There is not a shred of evidence that private mine owners and the Government have any concerns other than their profits when it comes to dealing with the coal industry.
I was reading some old newspaper cuttings and came across one about Lord Fitzwilliam. In 1873, he said that he was the owner of mines simply as a fund for himself and his family and they were to be used with regard only to his caprice—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having some difficulty relating 1873 to pension policy in the future; perhaps the hon. Lady will come to that.

Ms Squire: What I am saying is that I support the amendments because we are concerned that the Government are looking at the two British Coal pension schemes in the way described by Lord Fitzwilliam back in 1873—that is, from the basis of their caprice and self-interest.
The second reason why my constituents and I question the proposals for the two pension schemes—the mineworkers pension scheme and the staff superannuation scheme—is their value of about £17 billion. That causes great concern to my constituents, miners, pensioners and their families because they are afraid that the Government

have a hidden agenda. They are afraid that privatisation could threaten the security of current and future benefit payments, they are afraid that it could affect the real value of benefits paid and they are afraid that those who are still employed in the industry after privatisation could be denied equivalent pension rights.
The third reason why my constituents seek more than mere assurances from the Government is the abuse of pension schemes, which other hon. Members have mentioned, most notably, the Maxwell pension scheme. Only yesterday, there was a report in the Scottish papers about a Lanarkshire steel company which took over part of the industry after British Steel was broken up and privatised. The company used £300,000 from the pension fund to prevent the business from failing, and £80,000 of the money, which included workers' pension payments, remains unaccounted for. That is why we are looking for something wider than a national interest in this part of the Bill.
My fourth reason for supporting the amendments is that a balance must be struck between the interests of the taxpayer, whom the Minister claims to represent, and the interests of the beneficiaries of the schemes. The powers proposed in this part of the Bill are wide. What will happen if there is a conflict of interest between the national interest as defined by the Secretary of State and the views of the trustees in the three key areas of investment policy, actuarial valuations and the distribution of surpluses? Whose view would carry weight in those circumstances?
I know that time is short; there is a great deal more that I should like to say. I ask the Minister to look supportively and favourably at the amendments and recognise the national service and interest that past and present miners have given to the industry. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, I seem to spend most of my time talking about security, insecurity and uncertainty, whether with regard to defence-related industries or, as today, the coal industry and the pension schemes. We are looking for a small lump of security in what otherwise seems to my constituents who have a connection with mining pensions as a massive seam of uncertainty.

Mr. Eggar: I do not think that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) had any misconceptions, but the Government have given a categorical assurance about safeguarding people's pensions and I do not want her to alarm her constituents needlessly.
What the amendments are about, especially amendment No. 18, is the precise terms of the Government guarantee. After extensive consultation with the trustees, the Government have agreed that a guarantee will be available to ensure that the pension, as from its base point, rises in accordance with the retail prices index, whatever happens with the actuarial position. The amendment would effectively extend the Government guarantee to pension increases above the RPI. It is the Government's position that that is not a reasonable expectation on behalf of the beneficiaries; it is perfectly fair for the Government to give an RPI guarantee but not that the bonus element of the pension should be guaranteed. It would be wrong to expect the taxpayer to provide a guarantee along those lines.
It would be wrong to guarantee bonuses from actuarial surpluses which prove on subsequent valuations to have been illusory. The hon. Lady knows that the assessment of surpluses can vary from time to time according to investment records and the assumptions that are made. The


whole sector is difficult. At present, it is a matter of detailed discussion with the trustees and between the Government Actuary and the trustees' actuarial advisers. Progress is being made, but perhaps more slowly than we had anticipated.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are to paragraph 5(5), the wording of which has always been a sensitive and difficult matter. Paragraph 5(5) relates to the need of the Secretary of State to be able to act on behalf of the interests of taxpayers and, equally, for the need of the trustees to be able to defend, if one likes, the position of the beneficiaries. That matter is still being discussed. I can honestly report to the House that progress is being made but we have not quite reached agreement.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for those responses. We are also grateful for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) because she has sat here for a long time. We all listened with great interest to what she said. She has spoken in a debate on pensions which is of extreme importance to many thousands of people. She referred to the £17,000 million in the pension fund, which is a significant amount by anyone's standard. We had important debates in Committee on the matter and we went into it in great detail. As the Minister said, the matter is still being discussed and negotiated with the trustees of the pension schemes.
I do not wish to extend the scope of the amendments or the debate, but the consequences of the abuse of pension schemes, such as that by the late Robert Maxwell, are not far from our minds. There are many parts of pension law to which the House will return. As my hon. Friend said, a balance must be struck between the beneficiaries of the schemes and the taxpayers. We heard a great deal about that in Committee. The point made by my hon. Friend, which will rest with the House and certainly the Minister, is that there is a lump of insecurity and a massive seam of uncertainty in the country.
I come back to the point, on which the Minister has touched, that the negotiations have gone on longer than one would have thought. They went on during the Committee and have continued through Report. We are anxious but hopeful that the negotiations will be satisfactorily concluded in the interests of all parties.
I ask the Minister to bear in mind—I am sure that he will—that we shall be looking for proper amendments to the Bill as a consequence of the successful conclusion of the negotiations before the Bill passes to the other place. We shall be looking for that with great anxiety on one hand and insistence on the other. Otherwise, we may be returning to the issues on the Floor of the House in another context.
However, on the basis of what we have heard tonight, and fully understanding that negotiations are taking place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43

PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBSIDENCE

Mr. Richard Alexander: I beg to move amendment No.2, in page 37, line 24, after 'substitution', insert—
(a) in relation to any claim for compensation for subsidence damage, for references to the Corporation of references to the Authority; and
(b)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 37, line 24, after 'damage', insert 'otherwise'.
No. 4, in page 37, line 26, at end insert—
'(1A) The Authority shall be entitled to recover all payments, costs and expenses made or incurred under subsection (1) above from the person (if any) who is the responsible person under subsection (2) of this section.'.
No. 29, in clause 45, page 39, line 32, leave out from 'State' to the end of the line and insert
'shall by regulations ensure that the Coal Authority will assume sole and proper responsibility for retaining the necessary expertise and resources for arrangements for the resolution of subsidence claims including'.
No. 28, in clause 46, page 40, line 39. at end insert:—
'(2A) Where a claimant for subsidence damage is assisted by the subsidence adviser, the subsidence adviser shall be responsible for ensuring that the damage notice is forwarded to the operator responsible for damage or to the Coal Authority.
(2B) Where the subsidence adviser has forwarded the damage notice to the operator, he shall inform the Authority of his action and send the Authority a copy of the damage notice.'.

Mr. Alexander: The amendment basically would require the Coal Authority to take over the responsibility for claims for subsidence damage after the date of the restructuring of the industry.
There has been uncertainty and confusion over subsidence, and I welcome the opportunity to raise the matter with my hon. Friend and to outline the basic concerns. I think that he would agree that experience of compensation claims generally suggests that the person who is liable can be as difficult as he or she can be before settling up, and they delay for as long as possible.
The proposed subsidence adviser may help in preventing that, but his powers seem very few, and the way in which the Bill has been drafted suggests that having the adviser cannot be the answer to the problems of properly dealing with claims.
There is no uniform procedure for claimants, and the danger is that those with potential liabilities may try to discourage claimants by making it as difficult as possible for them to claim. I should be glad to have my hon. Friend's reassurance on that aspect when he winds up this short debate.
Every hon. Member knows that even the most profitable company can become insolvent from time to time. We hear of large and virtually household names—I need not mention any of them—which have found themselves unable to meet their liabilities. Those who are suffering in cases of subsidence damage are particularly disadvantaged. They have generally received no benefit from the operation of the coal mining under their houses.
My hon. Friend stated in Committee that the Coal Authority would be responsible in the last resort. I accept what he says, but that is not in the Bill, and I would like reassurance again on that point. He also pointed to the


authority's right to terminate an area of responsibility for subsidence under clause 37. However, that is of little comfort to the claimant if there is no way of making the authority settle within a reasonable time, or at all.

Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is correct in his explanation of the difficulties which could be faced by people suffering from mining subsidence damage if something is not included in the Bill which is firm and gives protection. Some of my constituents are having difficulty under the present system of registering and claiming for mining subsidence compensation. If we are witnessing problems now, heaven knows what the situation will be under privatisation. I support the amendment, and I am following the deliberations closely. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will press his case as hard as he can with the Minister.

Mr. Alexander: I like to think that I am pressing the case hard now.
The hon. Gentleman brings me to my next point. There is nowhere in the Bill where the authority on termination would be responsible for claims already made against the operator at the time of termination. That is partly the hon. Gentleman's point. If it is intended that the authority should provide some safety net, we should be told, and that should be put in the Bill.
I do not want to pursue the point for too long, and I conclude in this way. The explanatory note issued by the Department of Trade and Industry noted that the authority has a duty only so far as practicable to secure that
those owed obligations in respect of subsidence damage do not sustain loss as a consequence of a failure by those licensed to carry on coal-mining operations to make reasonable financial provision for meeting their liabilities.
In a briefing sent to hon. Members who have taken an interest in the debate and in the Bill, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors noted that that just does not sound like a responsibility which will be undertaken and accepted in the Bill.
I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's response to the concerns enunciated in the amendment.

Mr. Michael Alison: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) in expressing misgivings on behalf of a wide range of constituents in Selby district. They include private individuals such as farmers and householders, as well as people in official positions, such as the clerks to the Ouse and Derwent internal drainage board and the Went internal drainage board, and the administration manager of Selby district council. They continue to have misgivings about the prospects for proper administration and funding of subsidence problems.
I start by sounding a positive note to my hon. Friend the Minister, whose conscientious care for the, anxieties expressed from all parts of the House about the implications of the Bill has been a model of what a helpful Minister should provide for the House. I am particularly grateful to him for making certain that we have been sent draft copies of the coal mining subsidence damage popular guide, and for his having taken the trouble to publish and circulate in advance the draft subsidence regulations. My hon. Friend has been disarming about that, and we are obliged to him for his helpful attitude.
The main anxiety about which I have received representations relates, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark pointed out, to the possible insolvency of a licence

operator. It was vividly expressed to me in a letter from Peter Bains, who is the clerk to the Ouse and Derwent internal drainage board. He made some commendatory comments about British Coal and the present arrangements and commented on the arrangements which apply to all private people in relation to British Coal.
As far as the internal drainage board is concerned, he said:
I cannot speak too highly of the way in which British Coal discharge their obligations. Problems are identified quickly. Emergency measures are taken by British Coal when necessary. They are receptive to the requirements of the drainage board. Remedial schemes are prepared with the absence of bureaucracy. Above all, the cost is funded by British Coal as an essential priority.
The concern of the drainage board is this. What guarantee is there that remedial schemes will be funded by private companies without regard to their financial position?…What happens if a licensed mine operator becomes insolvent? I can answer that question myself, the position becomes disastrous.
As I would have expected, my hon. Friend the Minister helpfully examined the issue after I raised it with him on an earlier occasion. In a letter which he sent to me on 17 February he said:
Where a mining company is liable, the Coal Authority will have a statutory duty to look carefully at the financial standing of mining companies, especially in relation to their ability to meet subsidence liabilities. Where necessary, the Authority will require operators to form special financial security arrangements, and the Bill provides that these arrangements can be set up so as to ensure that this security is effectively ring fenced for the protection of subsidence claimants.
Those words are prima facie helpful and reassuring, but they do not entirely and conclusively evacuate anxiety from my constituents, whether private individuals or corporate bodies.
The Minister clearly based his letter of 17 February on the provisions in clause 2(1)(c) of the Bill, which could hardly have a more robust or splendidly explicit and reassuring ring about them in terms of the Government's determination to make certain that moneys will be put aside and properly protected for meeting subsidence claims in case of insolvency. However, unfortunately, clause 2(1)(c) is governed by the tell-tale phrase "so far as practicable" in clause 2(1). That phrase is a term of art and not, unfortunately, a pillar of potential in the law courts.
Although clause 2(1)(c) is not meant to be so definitive as clauses 29 and 36, the fact remains that it is the introductory operative paving section, and it contains the dreadful, portentous and uncertain words, "so far as practicable".
I passed my hon. Friend's letter to one or two slightly jaundiced scrutineers in my constituency. In the words of one of them who wrote back to me:
The 'security arrangements' to which Mr. Eggar refers will be no good at all unless they involve 'cash down' to await a subsidence claim. Bonds or guarantees from third parties no matter of what financial standing are no answer to the potential problems that I outlined. The reason for this is that the institutions (and their assessors) who provide such security are masters of delay and obstruction … But land drainage and flood protection remedial work will not wait, and drainage authorities are certainly not in the position of being able to advance the money until reimbursement.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can give further reassurances to the House on the issue. I suspect that he probably can.
I am particularly encouraged by one further passage in my hon. Friend's letter of 17 February, in which he confirms that the Bill maintains the application of a rather abstruse but nevertheless living and relevant measure


which is on the statute book at present—the Doncaster District Drainage Act 1929. The Act has enormous significance in the present context. My hon. Friend explained to me in the letter that he wrote that the Doncaster District Drainage Act will maintain its present incarnation and applicability as a result of the Bill. The Bill provides for that remote but important and living statute to continue in place.
The relevance of the Doncaster District Drainage Act 1929 is that, even before nationalisation in 1947, it provided that provision had to be made by private owners to contribute towards a sinking fund so that moneys were readily available for mining subsidence remedial work. The fund was made up of contributions from the private operators, but placed in the hands of the then river authorities and administered by them. Needless to say, a river authority which had control over a sinking fund wasted no time in dipping into its resources if private operators defaulted or failed to come up with the necessary remedial finance.
8.45 pm
As my hon. Friend the Minister has already implicitly accepted the precedent for requiring a sinking fund to be made available and for that fund to be placed in the hands of people other than the mining operators, such as the Coal Authority or a river board, I hope that something analogous can be provided, or at least considered sympathetically, so that we have a little pot of gold already in place which can be drawn upon and contributed to by the new coal operators and licence operators as and when a crisis of insolvency occurs. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to reassure us along those lines.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Looking around the Chamber, I see a small corps of veterans of the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill of 1991, who will recall the circumstances and the context in which we had to pass the Bill—a threatened dissolution of the House. Our desire to make sure that we got the Bill on the statute book prevailed over even the greater scrutiny that it deserved.
Therefore, a second opportunity to consider this fundamental issue must not be passed over lightly, especially as three years down the road have been three years of more heartache, concern and in some cases despair for my constituents in the villages of Edwardsville, Treharris, Quakers Yard and Trelewis. The fact that the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 has not given the relief or assistance that one hoped and expected brings one back to examine the provisions in this Bill.
I draw one conclusion from the experience of considering the 1991 Bill. As much as we might put provisions in the Bill about the role of the Coal Authority, a subsidence adviser or whoever else, absolute powerful rights of remedy to householders affected by subsidence are the best and most effective way of dealing with subsidence.
I remember many of the debates we had about trying to strike a balance between the interests of British Coal and the worries and concerns of householders. Reflecting on those debates, I have come to the conclusion that that is not the premise from which we should start; we should start from the premise that a householder affected by subsidence

has an absolute right. After all, he or she is an innocent party. That householder bought the house in the hope that it would be a wonderful home in which to invest savings and borrow against. But suddenly a bulge may occur in a wall and cracks may appear in the paths—the house takes on a mini-Los Angeles earthquake look—and a house which was a family's pride becomes a nightmare. That is not an exaggerated description of the plight of householders in communities such as mine and those of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
We are asked to explore the interests of the householder versus the interests of British Coal. It should not be a balance of interests; it should be fundamental that the householder, as an injured party, has a right to a speedy remedy under the law which is able to be enforced as speedily and effectively as possible. I do not think that the 1991 Act provides this and, as hon. Members have said, I do not think these essentially confused arrangements will provide it in the future.
Since the Second Reading of this Bill the Minister and his Department have published draft subsidence regulations, and we thank him that they have been made available and can therefore be taken into account in debating the provisions of this Bill. I eagerly picked up the draft regulations in the hope that they would represent the sort of remedy that the affected villages in my community have been seeking.
I turned to the provisions on which I spent considerable time—as I think hon. Members opposite did—in an attempt to get a decent provision to cover the situation of blight as a result of subsidence. Blight is one of the most dreadful consequences of subsidence. A dwelling can possibly be repaired in due course, but it becomes unsaleable for a considerable period, perhaps for ever. Blight is a deadly consequence in communities affected by subsidence.
I looked through the blight provisions because I had fought for them during debate on the 1991 Bill—I think that we had a clause inserted into that Bill from which these regulations derive. I hope that the Minister will tell us that these are only draft regulations and that he will be willing to listen to what I have to say, because there are two fundamental problems with the draft regulations about blight.
First, he is tying all of the blight provisions to the use of stop notices: either a stop notice has to be issued or there has to be the probability of an issue within a nine-month period before the blight clauses of these regulations can come into force.
In the case of Edwardsville, Treharris, Quakers Yard and Trelewis, very few stop notices have been served. Therefore, that provision would not trigger the blight provisions in the regulations. I think the issue and acceptance of a damage notice would be a more effective trigger for the blight provisions.
But I find the second subsection of the provisions most objectionable because it challenges the householder's right to serve a blight notice. Subsection 2(c) of the blight regulations states that
the principal reason for the sale is a change in the owner's personal or family circumstances such as would be likely to cause any reasonable owner to decide to sell the owner's interest in the dwellinghouse.
What a curious continuing provision. The householder whose home is blighted—and has been demonstrated to be blighted by the fact that he has been unable to sell it at the


normal market value—will have to describe to British Coal or to a newly licensed mining company that it is his personal family circumstances which compel him to sell. Why should the householder have to do that? Why should he or she not just say, "I need to move; I wish to move"? Why does there have to be a detailed examination of the personal family circumstances of a householder before he or she can exercise the blight provisions under these regulations?
Since the operation of the 1991 Act, there have been one or two dreadful cases where people have had to go on their hands and knees to British Coal and beg it to accept blight notices, describing the most painful personal circumstances. Why should people who are innocent parties and who have done absolutely nothing wrong but who have the sad misfortune to own a home under which British Coal have made a hole have to explain, as set out in the draft regulation, the circumstances which compel them to decide to move? All they should have to do is express a desire to move and prove that the home has been blighted because it is unsaleable at the normal market price.
The provision of arbitration concerns me also—again, we pinned a lot of faith on this aspect in the 1991 Act. The Minister has provided a draft regulation on arbitration. I have found it very difficult to persuade people to go to arbitration. They are widely concerned that what we hoped was an informal, helpful, basically cheap and quick and speedy means of resolving the problems of disputes will be just as much a Goliath versus David confrontation as land tribunals and high courts have been in the past. People fear that British Coal will come along with its top advisers and override the values and concerns of individual householders who, under the draft regulations, have to carry their own expenses of going to arbitration.
As far as this Bill is concerned, what will be the role of subsidence advisers, the Coal Authority or the arbitration assessor in upholding, technically and professionally, the case on behalf of the householder concerned? Previously it has been an unequal battle when a dispute has occurred to try to get redress by going to tribunals or to the High Court.
Of course, no legal aid is available to householders in the case of arbitration. That is not what we wanted; we hoped that arbitration would be simpler, more effective and cheaper than previous methods. What provisions contained in the Bill, in the clauses that we are trying to amend, or in the draft regulations issued by the Minister will ensure that the individual householder is well equipped and capable of making sure that his or her case is heard properly, both professionally and technically, without incurring the costs that have been associated with other forms of procedures for resolving disputes?
I am sorry to delay the House but, on behalf of householders who thought that the 1991 Act would be something of a salvation and who have found subsequently that that was not so, I reiterate that we once again have an opportunity to provide a real remedy. Above all, we have the opportunity to give people real rights which enable them to stand up and overcome the grievances they justly feel when their homes are affected by subsidence.
In Edwardsville, Treharris and Quakers Yard it is ironic that much of the relatively recent subsidence occurred because British Coal decided to close the pit and mined it with great speed in the last 12 months. The people of those communities do not believe it is a coincidence that large-scale subsidence occurred in the last 12 months of the pit's operation. We are left with no jobs and no pits, only

a legacy of subsidence. If we do nothing else, we should ensure that householders have proper and full remedy under the law.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Concern is being expressed by hon. Members of all parties about the provisions for subsidence. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, the present situation and the past record are not perfect, but we are in danger of fragmenting liabilities in a way that could add to individuals' difficulties.
If every licensee is responsible, action will have to be taken against a licensee and only on the basis of assurances that we have received from the Minister will there be a fallback on the Coal Authority as a last resort. For many people, that may be far too late if they have become involved in litigation or are unable to enter into litigation but, because they have not done so, the Coal Authority says that they have not exhausted all the possibilities and that it is therefore not minded to represent their interests. The issue needs to be clarified.
I must press the Minister on one matter. There is no commercial reason for the Government to resist the proposed improvement. The Library notes refer to the Financial Times of 13 January, which reported:
Prospective purchasers of coal mines are warning the Government that privatisation of the industry is being severely hampered by requirements that the new owners of mines must take on historic liabilities for subsidence. The liabilities could amount to hundreds of millions of pounds … Potential purchasers say that past liabilities may outweigh the likely business benefits of mining coal in some of the five areas for sale".
That is clearly a factor which one understands the Government might feel they have to take into account, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that it cannot be a justification for resisting an improvement to the Bill which would ensure that there was a clear, fair and straightforward means for individuals in particular to get redress. Does he agree that, in most cases, it would be much better if individuals went to the authority and that the authority dealt with the matter and undertook to recover the money or indemnify itself against any private owner?
In order that the Minister does not misunderstand me, I stress that I am not suggesting that private owners should not be liable for subsidence arising out of their own workings—of course they should be, and even perhaps for related cover. However, it is clearly not acceptable that those affected should find that a series of barriers are making it even more difficult for them to obtain redress.
For many people, going to one single authority and knowing that it is the authority that will sort out the matter is surely the best way to proceed. That authority can then undertake to recover whatever is required from those who are held liable in law, whether it is the private or the historic owner.
I shall not delay the House, but I am sure that the Minister will accept that the issue is causing concern to all parties. Although the assurances that he has given go some way to meeting that concern, they do not appear to have satisfied Opposition Members or, indeed, some of his colleagues.

9 pm

Mr. Jim Lester: >: I shall be brief, because I agree with all that has been said. Most of us who have been dealing with constituency subsidence claims for a long


time know how difficult it can be to prove a case. We are all familiar with insurance companies, including the reputable ones which operate on behalf of local authorities, who are quick to take the cover, but with whom it is difficult to push through a claim.
I stress the problems of insolvency caused by subsidence, which is not an exact science. I remember when the Huthwaite pit, just over the way from my constituency, planned a new seam and estimated that there would be about £1 million-worth of subsidence. In the event, there was £9 million-worth of subsidence, which was enough to close the pit because it was uneconomic.
One can imagine that private purchasers, running fewer mines and therefore unable to offset one against the other, could get into serious difficulties if a non-exact science can lead to greater liabilities than they are able to cover. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, the cost should never be borne by innocent victims.

Mr. O'Neill: Amendment No. 29 would ensure that the expertise and resources to handle subsidence claims should be the responsibility of the Coal Authority, which we consider to be the appropriate regulatory body. It is essential that claimants have a simple procedure for the presentation of claims, which is the purpose of amendment No. 28.
The subsidence adviser will be empowered to handle all stages of a claim, allowing him to act fully as the claimant's agent. That will not only protect the customer but standardise the form of claims, thus easing the administrative load on the authority and the operators. It will also reduce the opportunity for fraud by directing claims to an individual responsible to the Secretary of State.
It is important that such channels and expertise are available in this critical matter, and we believe that it would be worth the Minister considering the issue again. We discussed it at some length in Committee, but there is widespread concern that a fragmented industry, with a diminished Coal Authority, will not necessarily provide the best protection for the legitimate claims of people who will have enough to worry them without wondering how long the claims will take and to whom they will be speaking.

Ms Walley: I wish to impress on the Minister how important it is that my constituents should be able to get proper compensation for the subsidence that has already occurred. The House should be aware that, under the present system, it is almost impossible to get compensation when it is needed. Whatever the Government might have done to introduce the arbitration scheme, I can give details of tens of constituents who have not been able to get compensation from the arbitration system. Unless the Minister takes on board the amendments that we have tabled, there will be even less accountability, and it will be even more difficult to get over all those hurdles to obtain proper compensation for damage that has been done to people's properties.
Anyone who lives in a home where there is subsidence, who walks down the sloping floor, who sees the cracks appear in their property, who has to live with all the uncertainties and with the realisation that they cannot sell

their home because it is blighted will agree with the amendments. The Minister must go away and return with greater assurances than we have had. I wish briefly, on behalf of my constituents, to make that point to him.

Mr. Hood: I am anxious because the provision in the Bill about who will be liable for subsidence damage has a hairy-fairy quality. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) mentioned cracks in the walls. I have seen houses that were split down the middle. I have seen houses collapse.
A colliery in the Mansfield area, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), was closed principally because the miners were then held responsible for the cost of subsidence. Sherwood colliery was closed because they could not afford to take the cost of subsidence off the backs of the miners who were producing coal at a profit, but against whom the costs of subsidence were being levied.
It is important that the Minister qualifies who will be responsible for the cost of subsidence damage. We are speaking about not a few thousand pounds, but literally millions of pounds. I hope that the Minister qualifies that before we have a vote.

Mr. Eggar: We have had a full debate, covering three areas. One area is the adequacy or otherwise of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991. The second area is the procedure for claims under that Act. The third area is the financial position of the protection for any claims. I will try to deal rapidly with each of those areas.
I understand the worry of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) about the operation of the 1991 Act. It is fair to say that that Act marked a considerable step forward, and that both sides of the House welcome it as such. I have taken careful note of the arguments that the hon. Gentleman made about the operation of the draft subsidence regulations. They are indeed in draft, and I will consider them carefully when I read the record.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was a little unfair when he discussed arbitration. We are tryilig to make the regulations governing arbitration as simple and accessible as possible. The householder will have to pay only £50. The other costs will be met by the responsible person—the company or the Coal Authority.
The arbitrations should be conducted on documents alone, except in exceptional circumstances, and there will be no scope for technical experts, expensive lawyers and so on to present evidence. We shall keep it, admittedly, as rough and ready as we can, but that is in everyone's interest.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney referred to the fact that we have introduced in the Bill the concept of the subsidence adviser, who is there to "hold the claimant's hand", if the claimant wishes. We are keeping the arbitration system separate from the role of the subsidence adviser—that is important—but the subsidence adviser could, under certain circumstances, if he felt it appropriate, write to the arbitrator and give a view, but it would not in any way substitute for the view of the householder.

Mr. Rowlands: I followed closely what the Minister said, and I am grateful for his explanation. Does that mean that the subsidence adviser will be able to engage on behalf


of the householder, or himself have available to him, professional technical advice if British Coal comes in heavy-handedly with professional technical evidence?

Mr. Eggar: No. The subsidence adviser is there almost as a layman to help the individual through the system, to make the householder's approach to the arbitration system more user-friendly. We are not trying to build in a great deal of technical expertise through the subsidence adviser. That is not necessary, and the purpose of the arbitration system is to do away with it.
The second main area covered in the debate concerned the whole procedure for claims. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) was kind enough to refer to the fact that we have made draft regulations available. In fact, we have also made available to the Committee a draft of the leaflet to be circulated to all householders. I see that an Opposition Member has a copy.
I quite understand why some hon. Members feel that the Coal Authority should be the recipient of all claims. This point was made in particular by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). There would be very considerable danger in such an arrangement. The Coal Authority will be located in Nottinghamshire. It will be remote. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind a sort of post box system, that would simply introduce an additional layer of bureaucracy. It would be an additional and remote hurdle. I am sure that most hon. Members would rather have a very clear duty placed on coal mining companies to deal directly with subsidence matters.
It is in everyone's interests that we should try to build up a relationship between local operators and the people whose properties will be undermined. Such a relationship would bring the problem home in a much more realistic way. I should have thought that, coming from the party to which he belongs, the hon. Memberber for Gordon would appreciate decentralisation.
There will, of course, be a right to go to the Coal Authority if there was any uncertainty about where a licensed operator was functioning. An application will go to the Coal Authority. If it is not the authority's responsibility, there will be a duty to pass it on to the relevant mining operator.
I hope that I have dealt adequately with points concerning procedure.
The major concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby, whom I thank for his kind remarks, and by my hon. Friends who represent Nottinghamshire constituencies, arises from the spectre of a situation in which a private operator is not able to fulfil its financial obligations in the case of subsidence.
My right hon. and hon. Friends, like hon. Members on the Standing Committee, spent some time discussing the words "so far as practicable". In legislative terms, those words express a very strong duty. The words that are normally used in such circumstances are "so far as reasonably practicable", which my right hon. and hon. Friends will immediately recognise as weaker.
Why do we use "so far as practicable", and not impose an absolute duty? The reason is very clear. When an absolute duty is imposed, the person on whom it is imposed has to cover every conceivable circumstance—such as earthquake or some form of nuclear attack. Such an onus would be quite disproportionate to the actual liability

that an operator is likely to have to deal with. Thus, we shall not have to look at the substance of the obligation that is placed on the operator.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby is right to assume that the Doncaster Area Drainage Act 1929 will be maintained. That legislation, rather than the 1991 legislation, will apply. We shall use the powers under clause 65 of the Bill to deal with this matter.
My right hon. Friend also asked whether a hard cash fund is needed. Clearly, the form of financial security is a matter for the Coal Authority. An assessment of the financial strength of an operator will take account of whether security is necessary and, if so, in what form. We contemplate the possibility of the Coal Authority's being able to accept bonds, and the Bill expressly contemplates the possibility of a trust. The point is, however, that, in all circumstances relating to the financial strength of the operator and the likely contingent liabilities, the authority will have to form a judgment and satisfy itself that the financial obligations will be there.
Let us suppose that—notwithstanding all the provisions in regard to such matters as financial security—that security, having been called, is not adequate. In that unlikely circumstance, the Coal Authority would first establish whether anyone else wanted to take on the area of responsibility—in other words, the mining enterprise.
If that proved impossible, the authority would probably decide that the responsibility should be withdrawn from a company that would in effect be bankrupt, and should return to the authority. I seem to remember that such circumstances are covered in clause 37. The authority would then become responsible for all subsidence claims.

Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is standing with his back to the Opposition. I am sure that he feels comfortable in that position, but I should be grateful if he would address the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister should address the Chair, actually—and he was looking at me.

Mr. Eggar: I apologise to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). I shall fix him with a steely glare for the remainder of my speech—through the Chair, of course. I must say that I am not entirely sure how I can convey the steely glare through the Chair.

Mr. Hood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have now had an opportunity to take a look at the Minister, and I withdraw my objection.

Mr. Eggar: For that small mercy, many thanks.
I hope that I have been able to deal with the various points that have been made—albeit in staccato fashion, because of the shortage of time. I repeat that I understand that this is a sensitive matter for many hon. Members and their constituents, but I am confident that we have built in the right form of security. I hope that, on that basis, the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Alexander: I thank my hon. Friend for responding to concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. His remarks deserve further study, and it may be appropriate for them to be discussed in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46

THE SUBSIDENCE ADVISER

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 41, line 12, at end insert—
'(5A) The provision that may be contained in regulations under this section shall include—

(a) provision for any matter to which the regulations relate to be determined by the Authority in such manner, and by reference to such factors, as may be described in the regulations; and
(b) provision, where any expenses are to be met by the Authority in accordance with the regulations, for amounts in respect of those expenses to be recoverable by the Authority from other persons with responsibility for subsidence affecting land.'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Clause 47

DISPUTES ETC. AS TO SUBSIDENCE MATTERS

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 42, line 28, at end insert—

'(6A) The provision that may be contained in regulations under this section shall include—

(a) provision for any matter to which the regulations relate to be determined by the Authority in such manner, and by reference to such factors, as may be described in the regulations; and
(b) provision, where any expenses are to be met by the Authority in accordance with the regulations, for amounts in respect of those expenses to be recoverable by the Authority from other persons with responsibility for subsidence affecting land.'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Clause 51

ADDITIONAL RIGHTS IN REGARD TO UNDERGROUND LAND ETC.

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 46, line 37, after `actionable' insert 'in England and Wales,'.

No. 50, in page 46, line 42, after `question;' insert—
'() the doing of any act which, apart from this section, would be actionable in Scotland by virtue of—

(i) any real burden (including a real burden ad factum praestandum); or
(ii) any statutory prohibition or restriction, which adversely affects the land in question;'.—[Mr. Eg gar.]

Clause 52

OPENCAST OPERATIONS

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 47, line 19, leave out 'after 31st December 1999' and insert
'except in respect of land for which a valid planning application for coal mining has been received by the relevant local planning authority by the date on which this Act received the Royal Assent,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 6, in page 47, line 34, leave out
'in relation to the period before 31st December 1999'.

Mr. Alexander: I am aware that it is getting late, so I shall be as brief as possible.
The amendments have cross-party support, and recognise the continuing concern that exists in another area. In the Bill, the Government propose that, until the end of 1999, private sector mining operators should have recourse to compulsory powers, through the Coal

Authority, to gain access to land for opencast or drift mining. Those powers are quite extensive and deserve a little more debate before being approved.
The amendment seeks to put the privatised coal industry in the same position as any other private mineral industry, while ensuring fair treatment to anyone who has made commercial commitments on the basis of the current law. There is no obvious reason why private coal operators should be in a better position than other mineral operators whose land or rights they wish to acquire. The Government recognise that by limiting those rights to 1999. I fully understand the need to safeguard existing commitments, but the proposed period goes beyond that.
The amendment proposes, therefore, to limit the rights to those who have made serious financial commitment to any project, as demonstrated by the submission of a valid planning application. I use the word "valid" to exclude anyone who has merely sent a letter or expressed concern or interest.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the five-year period had been adopted to allow time for a review of access to all mineral resources. If the intention is to produce a uniform set of procedures for accessing all minerals, and those procedures are unlikely to include compulsory acquisition powers, it is difficult for us to see why they need to be extended now to the private sector for coal alone.
My hon. Friend claims that as the ownership of coal vests in the nation, the nation has the right to have access to it, but many mineral rights are vested in people other than the landowner and access has to be negotiated in the marketplace commercially in the normal way. Why should coal be any different?

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Are not the rights being continued because they make the share value of British Coal's opencast executive that much higher and provide just enough time for British Coal to exploit all those areas currently being prospected?

Mr. Alexander: I do not wish to speculate along the same lines as the hon. Gentleman, but my hon. Friend the Minister has heard that observation and will no doubt wish to comment when he replies to the debate.
The existence of the compulsory purchase powers will distort the value of the land concerned and favour the mine owner over any other private interests. In 1975, when it first came about, it might have been tolerable in answer to a national need—and there was certainly a need for coal in the mid 1970s—but in a free market with no overriding national interest at stake, it seems oppressive and unusual and I ask my hon. Friend to justify it a little more before the House accepts it.

Mr. Alison: In support of my hon. Friend's amendment, I should like to place on the record my view that in the new, privatised environment, normal private treaty negotiation should be the order of the day between private licence holders and private landowners and the compulsory rights order procedure should be made redundant.
I am reassured in postulating that general principle by the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister has already conceded the validity of that proposition by setting a clear terminal date—the end of 1999—after which the compulsory rights order procedure will be made redundant and removed from the statute book. The fact that it has


been conceded as temporary and short-lived is a good reason for asking my hon. Friend to agree that it should be further accelerated and CRO procedures dropped forthwith.
My hon. Friend the Minister sought to reassure some of us on the matter, in particular a colleague of considerable distinction, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), to whom he wrote a letter on 14 January this year. My right hon. Friend has been kind enough to allow me to refer to that letter. My hon. Friend the Minister was at some pains to reassure my right hon. Friend that, during the short-lived, interim, twilight existence that the compulsory rights orders procedure is to enjoy, it would be subject to decisions by the Coal Authority. He said not only that the procedure would be operated by the Coal Authority—it is a public body, so that might reassure people—but that that procedure would be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
One may think, therefore, that those two double fail-safe mechanisms will ensure that the CRO procedure will be benign, but it does not quite work out like that. Certain ramifications, involving the scope and activities of the Coal Authority, will make it almost unavoidable for the authority to confirm a CRO. The Coal Authority will grant a licence to an operator. Once that has occurred, the operator will take his licence to the Secretary of State for the Environment to obtain planning permission for coal extraction, for which it has obtained a licence.
Under those circumstances, is it likely that the Coal Authority, which has given the operator a licence, and the Secretary of State, who has given planning permission, will suddenly say, "Oh yes, we have cheerfully given you a licence and planning permission, but, bingo, we have suddenly decided not to give you a compulsory rights order"?
As night follows day, after the authority has given a licence and the planning authority has given planning permission, they will not then refuse to give an operator a CRO. It is self-defeating to give those powers to the public bodies, even if the idea behind it is to reassure the public. The mechanism is not fail-safe, but fail-foul. It will result automatically in CROs being granted when the Coal Authority gives a licence and the planning authority gives planning permission.
It is for those reasons that I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider carefully whether he needs to extend the life of the procedure and whether it would not be better to cut its throat here and now and move into the environment of private enterprise and normal private treaty negotiations between private organisations. I hope that my hon. Friend will at least consider the matter and perhaps alter it in another place.

Mr. Hardy: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) referred to cutting the throat of this evil proposal. If I had said it, it would have been regarded as distasteful. He is right, and I wish many other throats could be cut as far as the Bill is concerned.
The issue is important because it gives Conservative Members the opportunity to examine what the Government are doing. They are committed to free market forces and they are giving compulsory purchase rights to private businesses.

Mr. Kevin Barron: It is unbelievable.

Mr. Hardy: It is an incredible development. If Conservative Members want to be able to claim that they possess political consistency, they should agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for Selby.
I feel strongly about opencast mining. I want Conservative Members to put themselves in the position of people who live in coal regions, who may have seen their deep-mined pits destroyed, with the attendant devastation and dereliction. They have to face the prospect of green fields and a decent environment being destroyed by the new technological capacity of the opencast miners. In the 1940s and 1950s, there was opencast mining to a depth of about 200 ft in part of my constituency, but some opencast sites now go down 600 or 700 ft.
Opencast mining schemes can last for a decade. Would any hon. or right hon. Conservative Member care to live near an opencast site if mining was going to last for 10 years? Would they want to listen to the empty lorries banging along the pavements for 10 years, and making more row when they are empty than when they are full of coal and spoil?
9.30 pm
In Committee, I talked about seven lean years followed by seven fat ones. One or two Conservative Members will recognise the origin of that phrase. For people who live near opencast sites, it is seven lean years with no reward, because the profits flow away from the coalfields.
The Minister for Energy said that Labour-controlled councils in coalfield areas were not helpful and that they were resistant to opencast mining. I hope that many of them are. In the interests of democracy and the people whom they represent, they do not want to give permission for mining on green-field sites.
The Minister should understand that there is a place for opencast mining—in an area where it would clear dereliction and devastation. That proviso should be the principal, and perhaps the sole, determinant of a favourable position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will understand why I asked the Minister's colleague whether, the next time that he visited his constituency, he would go a little further north and turn off the M1 to visit the Rother Valley country park, which came about because of a large opencast mining scheme.
That scheme was not a nuisance to local residents because they knew that they would benefit at the end of it. What benefit exists for people who have to live near some of the schemes that are envisaged? I suggest to Conservative Members that, while our responsibilities are to our constituents, we must have some regard for other people. I trust that Conservative Members who may feel that they are not in danger of being exposed to opencast mining will consider those who are.
During the passage of the Bill, I harassed the Minister on several occasions to tell us where the accessible coal reserves are. He eventually produced a map to show those areas. On Monday, I tabled a question to ask the Minister to list the 15 counties where accessible coal reserves are detectable and to say at what depth the most shallow seam lies. The Minister's answer was evasive and he said that that information was not available. If the old statement that our island is surrounded by fish and built on coal is at all accurate, there must be many areas of Britain where modern technical capabilities and opencast operations can reach coal reserves.
In fun, I suggested that we should set up a Henley opencast mining company, to take advantage of the arrangements to get compulsory purchase orders until 1999, so that we could turn over the constituency of the President of the Board of Trade. I would rather that they had opencast mining in Henley than in my constituency, but I want to be charitable and I would not wish a large, noisy, opencast, operation on a green-field site in any part of our island, especially if the local community deplored the idea.
The Minister has so far been unable to deny that the Government have been disposed to allow opencast developments to take place against the wishes of local communities, which are harmed and ravaged by such developments far too often. It is vital for the Minister to guarantee that the powers granted to him in the Bill will not be allowed to drive people to despair through the excessive nuisance that some of his hon. Friends seem to favour.

Mr. Lester: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) spoke as if many Conservative Members do not represent coalfield constituencies where there is a potential for opencast mining, but most of the Conservative Members sitting here fall into that category.
The amendment gives the wrong signal. The Government and the Department of Trade and Industry are giving the wrong signal over compulsory use of powers, at a time when the Department of the Environment is concerned to revise the planning regulations that affect opencast mining. The description given by the hon. Member for Wentworth was entirely right. A potentially major scheme, Robinette, in my constituency could last 15 years, never mind 10, on a green-field site in the most beautiful part of the constituency. Already, compulsory notices are closing footpaths even before planning consent has been obtained. That gives rise to many rumblings among constituents when they find notices on footpaths that they have traditionally used saying that there is the potential to close them.
I want my hon. Friend the Minister to understand how deep are feelings in coaifield areas in which pits with workable reserves are closed, when planning consent for opencasting is given in the same area. It is obscene that pits equipped with valuable machinery and with plenty of workable coal are closed while green-field opencast sites, which cause despair and difficulty, are opened.
As it is late, I will not develop my argument, but I want my hon. Friend the Minister to appreciate the depth of feeling among residents of areas potentially affected by opencast mining when it is not necessary or required to meet the market.

Mr. Beith: Over the years, my constituency has produced as much opencast coal as any other in the country. Many of my constituents say, "Just a minute. Hang on—isn't it time we had more control over our county?" The same is true of south Wales and other parts of the country, where deep mining has ended and large opencast tracts are threatened. Residents are seeing the extension of compulsory powers to private companies, even if for a limited period, that are totally inappropriate when there is no overriding need for opencast coal. They see also the closure of deep mines, leading to opencast supplies being sought, and the abolition of the ceiling on the size of private opencast sites.
The sale of British Coal's opencast resources arises from the Bill, and it is proposed to revise the mineral planning guidance note, which still contains the words "national interest"—albeit in a slightly different phrase. No "national interest" exists that requires opencast mining. There is a commercial interest, and sometimes an employment reason or the possibility of restoring derelict land through an opencast operation—but there is no "national interest" to say that we need opencast resources.
The country has more coal than British Coal knows what to do with, and deep mines are being closed on a ludicrous scale. There is no overriding demand, as my constituents and those of Conservative Members know perfectly well. They are not fooled or in the least impressed by being told at an inquiry that the inspector must take into account that it is in the national interest to have access to opencast resources.
The dice are too heavily loaded against proper planning consideration of opencast operations. They are loaded by the existence of compulsory powers, and by existing and possible future planning guidance.
Containing and limiting the role of opencasting is reasonable and sensible, now that we have ample supplies of coal and are closing deep mines far faster than many of us feel is right. The planning situation should reflect that, and so should the powers made available. That is why I press the Minister to accept the amendments.

Mr. Michael Jopling: My attention was first drawn to the problem of compulsory rights orders and their effect in the Bill by the Country Landowners Association. I declare my interest, as I have many times before, as a member of that organisation—although I am glad to say that I am not aware of coal being anywhere near my farm, which is a blessing.
I am extremely anxious about the provisions that the amendment addresses. I share the dislike of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for opencast mining. My mind goes back to memories of his own area—the hon. Gentleman will recall that I once stood for Wakefield in the West Riding—and to a day, many years ago, that I spent campaigning in West Virginia with Senator Joe Rockefeller. I saw the total ravages that had been created in that state by strip mining, which Joe Rockefeller quite rightly said that he would bring to an end. I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman said, but the amendment is not so much about opencast mining as compulsory rights orders.
My hon. Friend the Minister was kind enough to write to me earlier in the year, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) referred to that letter. I remain very anxious about the provisions of the Bill. I agree very much with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby. I hope that, when replying, my hon. Friend will look sympathetically at the terms of the amendment and will seek to amend the Bill in another place.

Mr. Hood: I know that hon. Members are keen to rush their contributions tonight, as I am, but opencast mining is just too important a subject to speed through the House without proper examination. I am sure that the Bill was thoroughly examined in the Standing Committee—I make


no criticism of that—but I am a bit wary of rushing it through tonight without making a few points that need consideration.
I come from a mining background. In my political life, I have been very much involved in the British coal industry. All my views have been shaped on issues concerning a British coal industry. But I am also conscious of being a Scottish Member of Parliament. The. Bill threatens what is left of the Scottish coal industry. If—there is bit of hairiness about it—the Scottish coal industry, vis-a-vis deep-mined and opencast, is sold separately, it is my considered view that that would spell the death of what is left of the deep mines in Scotland. It is important that we have some answers from the Minister about that.
I speak also as a Member with one of the biggest—if not the biggest—opencast sites in Europe in my constituency. Some hon. Members may be aware that Clydesdale is a large urban-rural constituency of more than 500 sq miles. It is an area with no deep mines now, but in my earlier years, in my father's time, there were many deep mines in the area. It has a history of involvement in the mining industry. In comparison with the deep fields of Yorkshire and the midlands, it is an area of shallow coal. I have said before that one can walk over the moors in my constituency, kick over a sod of grass and find coal. It is rich with shallow coal. It is said that there are 140 million tonnes of reserves in the Douglas valley alone. Therefore, I am concerned with what the House does about opencast. The Clyde valley starts in my constituency.
Those who have heard "Song of the Clyde" have heard Kenneth McKellar or, before him, Robert Wilson say that the Clyde starts from lead hills and flows all the way to the sea—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sing it."] I am very much tempted to; I am sure that the House would be appreciative if I did. I have been a bit of a crooner in my day, but will relieve the House from my "Song of the Clyde".
9.45 pm
My constituency is very much a rural area; it is one of the loveliest parts of Scotland to come to on holiday or for a visit. Hon. Members are welcome to come there any time. Clydesdale now relies heavily on tourism for its employment because, thanks to the Government, much of our manufacturing industry has been destroyed, so tourism is a major employer. We must protect our environment to protect the jobs in tourism.
If there is any relaxation of planning legislation on opencast—there is a hint in the Local Government (Scotland) etc. Bill that that may happen—and local authorities are less able to protect the environment from the ravages of opencast, great damage will be done to our communities.
My constituency is one of the largest rural areas to deliver a Labour Member of Parliament—at least, it is one of the largest at present. Of course, many rural areas will deliver Labour Members of Parliament in the not too distant future. But if Conservative Members think that they can sit there in their nice wee rural areas with coal 300 ft or 400 ft below them, and not have their areas ravaged by the powers given in the Bill before us and by other Bills affecting local government, they are kidding themselves.
My local authority has recently opposed a planning application to mine coal in my constituency. It has opposed the application so far, and it will continue to do so unless the Bill takes away its power to do so. If that happens it could have a devastating effect on my constituency. I bring

that fact to the attention of hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, because I am sure that Opposition Members are already well aware of it.
The present mania for pit closures has raised another environmental question—water pollution. I discussed the matter today with a young student doing research on the effect that the massive pit closure programme will have on water pollution. Opencast mining is a great water pollution threat, too. The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) seems to be shaking his head, as if to say that that is not true. Clearly there is no opencast mining in his area; he probably has more experience with sheep than with opencast coal.
Water pollution is one of the first problems that any opencast site causes to our communities. It is certainly a problem in Scotland, and in the north-east of England Easington colliery, which was the last pumping station treating water, has recently been closed. I do not know —I hope that the Minister can tell us—what will happen where water used to be treated and pumped by British Coal. Who will accept the responsibility? I do not think that the Government have thought about that problem.
If the Government say through the Bill that they will be satisfied for the pumps to be switched off and the rivers to be polluted, that will spell serious problems for every community that will be affected by water pollution—and serious problems for the Government, too. I suspect that, at this delicate point in their negotiations with the European Union, the Government will fall foul of EC directives. Therefore, it is most important that when we deal with the opencast issue we know what powers are being given to the bodies that seem able to walk away from the problem.
Some of the comments that we heard earlier about the attempt to give powers involving compulsory purchase orders to mining companies who buy up land frightened me. We are living in a time when the Government are centralising power. They are giving power to the Executive, to quangos, to unaccountable local authorities, to health boards, to trusts, and so on. The Bill takes us further down that road and will give powers of compulsory purchase to private enterprise, which will be driven by profit. That is not a power that the House should give freely.
I hear Conservative Members talk about the European Union and the Community and about the House giving up sovereignty to unelected bodies in Brussels, yet the Bill gives powers to people in our country who are not accountable and over whom the House will have no control. It is a serious question and I am sure that the Minister knows what we are talking about, but I doubt very much that he will address it.

Mr. Skinner: Several Tories have spoken on the question of opencast mining. I get the clear impression that if we voted on a well-drawn amendment to suit those Tories and if their votes followed their speeches—

Mr. David Ashby: I have a well-drawn amendment.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has one? That is good because one thing is certain: we need to stop opencast mining. We cannot allow the idea of opencast to be acceptable on the basis put forward in the Bill when so many Labour Members and some Conservative Members are opposed to the very idea.
Everyone knows that getting coal by opencast is relatively easy now. In recent years many people who live in coalfield areas where pits have closed have rallied against the idea of opencast and, on some occasions, have been victorious against the proposed opencaster and British Coal. Sadly, however, at the very time at which it is becoming a little more difficult for British Coal to get away with opencast because of opposition from villagers and others, the Bill proposes to make it a lot easier. My policy in Derbyshire for the past 20 or so years has been not to support opencast applications at all, even where they were of so-called benefit to the villages. I took a principled view against all opencast applications in my area.
A few years ago, a village in my constituency, Arkwright Town, was nearly blown up because methane was coming out of the old coal mine, which had been closed. British Coal came along with a proposition to opencast the whole area and said that it would move the village of 232 houses to the other side of the road provided that the residents accepted opencast. I objected. Finally, British Coal received approval. Now that the privatisation Bill is going through, some of those villagers who were promised a new house on the other side of Arkwright Town are beginning to wonder whether they will get the opencast but not the houses.
It was proposed to build 232 houses on the other side of the village. The villagers were to have a pub, a school, a miners' welfare and all the various community facilities. The opencast has begun. I want the Minister to answer the question that all those people have asked me to put to him: has British Coal given him the assurance that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill, when the Coal Authority takes over, those village facilities and the 232 houses will be built for the people who will have to put up with 10 years of opencast mining? I hope that he can give that assurance tonight. I opposed the proposal, but the villagers believe that, if they have to put up with 10 years of opencast, they have a right to the houses that were promised in the first place.
I hope that, before the Bill finally becomes an Act, we shall be able to get all the Tories who are opposed to its opencasting provisions to vote against them, either when the Bill returns from the other place or on some other occasion. That will ensure that we stop private companies imposing compulsory purchase orders to enable them to decide on and, in many cases, exploit opencast sites. Everyone knows that 10 years of opencast mining results in great big holes and that toxic waste is dumped in them.
The Government will make money out of the opencast mines. They will shut the deep mine pits—as they have done—and then they will make a ton more money by dumping toxic waste from ports in Britain, Germany and God knows where else. Someone will make another big killing. People in Britain do not want opencasting. In every coalfield area, people want us to oppose the proposals. I hope that the Minister, too, will find them unacceptable.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Government's decision to extend compulsory rights orders to 1999 gives an unprecedented advantage to companies that seek to exploit opencast mining. It is done to ensure that the share values for the sale of British Coal are as high as possible. It will encourage the exploitation of areas that have already been

prospected by 1999; companies will be encouraged to exploit the areas by 1999 because their unfair advantage and the compulsory rights orders will end at that time.
The Government's decision will enable private companies to blight coalfields and my constituency of Warwickshire, North by making opencast mining applications for as long as compulsory rights orders can be obtained. The Government are giving opencast mining companies unfair and deliberate advantages in making applications and sacrificing coalfield communities and the environment on the altar of privatisation, ideology and greed. That is what the Government are doing and that is what will happen to every village in every coalfield area where there is the prospect of opencast mining. The amendments seek to change that.
I can tell the House from personal experience in my constituency the sort of attitude that the Government have displayed to opencast mining. In 1991, there was a public inquiry in my constituency over the Birch Coppice site. Birch Coppice is a former pit; it was closed a few years ago. Beyond that pit is another pit, Baddesley. That pit was closed a few years ago but there is still coal on the site.
The opencast mining executive of British Coal decided that it wanted to exploit the Baddesley site, so it made an application in 1990. Mineral planning guidance 3 was in operation at the time. A public inquiry took place in July and August 1991 to consider the application on the basis of MPG3, which gives enormous advantages to the opencast mining executive in making an application.
The application for opencast mining threatened the villages of Baddesley Ensor, Dordon and Grendon and directly threatened about 10,000 people. If the application had been granted, the threat would have extended to other villages and about 20,000 homes would have been affected. It threatened the environment, the quality of life of people in those villages and the value of their homes.
A few months after the public inquiry, the Government published interim planning guidance with regard to opencast mining. Two years later, I was still writing to the Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment asking why there was no decision about the Birch Coppice opencast site: why had we not had a decision after two years even though homes were blighted? On 2 August 1993, we had the publication of the report of the inquiry in favour of granting opencast mining. But the Secretary of State overruled the public inquiry and on 2 August he decided that there would be no opencast mining at Birch Coppice. We were absolutely delighted that he made the right decision; although he had taken two years to do it, we could forgive him.
Three weeks ago, the Secretary of State for the Environment—undoubtedly after consultations with colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry—decided to set aside the decision reached on 2 August 1993 because he had made a mistake. After two years of blighting the area around Birch Coppice and 20,000 people's lives, the Department decided that it had made a mistake. It has now set aside the decision not to grant permission for opencast and has put the whole thing back into the melting pot. We now do not know whether 20,000 people will have a hole the size of 250 football pitches and up to 600 ft deep next to their homes. The crass incompetence of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry in making this non-decision beggars belief.
We know now the sort of attitude that the Government have to opencast and to the coalfield communities. It was clear—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.14 (Exempted Business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Coal Industry Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: We now know the attitude that the Government have to the coalfield communities because it is clear. It was clear when the decision was made on 2 August 1993 that it should not have been made in that way. When we approached the civil servants to find out whether they had taken legal advice, we found out that they had not bothered to take proper legal advice. Instead of making the decision based on MPG 3—as they ought to have done—they made the decision based on the interim planning guidance.
They had not given British Coal the opportunity to make representations on the matter. For any lawyer in the House, that was a classic breach of the rules of natural justice. On 2 August 1993, the planning officers at my council knew that, and all the opencast objectors knew that.
We want to ensure that the people in the coalfield communities, and particularly Birch Coppice, get a decent and quick decision which says no to opencast. Local people should have the right to refuse to have opencast in their area unless a derelict site is involved and they want it. They should have the right to say no. The Government have shown absolute contempt for the coalfield communities and I hope that the Bill will not be passed.

Ms Walley: Like the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), I have an interest to declare. I was born and brought up in Staffordshire. I should like Conservative Members to come to Mow Cop where my constituency starts and look at what was the north Staffordshire coalfield. They will see the dereliction of the pits that were closed down because they said that we did not need deep mine pits. They should look at the open green-field countryside and at the proposed opencast sites in Biddulph South and Biddulph West, in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox), whom I do not see in his place.
The Minister may think that he has got away with closing down deep pits. If the Bill goes ahead and the opencast proposals rip up the whole countryside in the face of opposition from so many people—such as the people against opencast in the midlands group—let him think again.
We do not want the countryside scarred. We want a real commitment to environmental protection, and it is high time that the Government stopped talking about the national interest when it comes to opencast coal mining. It is time that they did something about an energy policy, and that should be taken into account in the new MPG 3 guidance notes.

Mr. Eggar: Understandably, there has been a debate on the issue because people feel strongly about opencast in general. Of course, the debate on this particular set of amendments is about compulsory rights orders.
The principle of compulsory access is well established. It is not well known, but all mineral developers, including those of oil, gas, and sand and gravel, can get access to land on a compulsory basis. They are able to apply to the High Court for compulsory rights under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966. There is nothing new in the concept of compulsory access.
I suggest to the House that the issue is what the procedures for gaining access and the safeguards should be. In the Bill, we are carrying forward the compulsory rights order regime but are adding two absolutely critical safeguards in recognition of the fact that the private sector, rather than British Coal, would be the instigator.
The first of the two safeguards is that the Coal Authority and not the operator will make the orders. In other words, the operator will have to convince the Coal Authority that an order is appropriate. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) pointed out, the Secretary of State will have to confirm an order if and when it has been made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that he will confirm a compulsory rights order only when it would be in the public interest.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby, in a slightly uncharacteristically uncharitable assessment of the role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be likely to play, suggested that because planning permission would have been given, my right hon. Friend would automatically confirm a CRO. That is not the case. My right hon. Friend would have to consider in each case the separate question whether it was in the public interest for the rights of the landowner to be set aside, albeit in practice temporarily. That is not a decision that he could take lightly because it would be subject to judicial review and other appropriate procedures. He would have to invite representations from all interested parties and the decision could be taken only in the light of careful consideration of the arguments that might be made in those representations.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have to treat the planning application entirely separately from a decision whether to confirm a CRO. If he did not do that, he would be subject to judicial review.

Mr. Derek Enright: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene and I shall certainly be swift about it. Does he agree that the experience of people such as my constituents and people in areas such as Selby is not good when it comes to ministerial or British Coal decisions? Wintersett and North Featherstone, which are the only country areas in my constituency, are currently the subject of an opencasting proposal. That proposal has outraged the community.

Mr. Eggar: I understand the worries about opencasting, but we are discussing compulsory rights orders. I am trying to address my remarks directly to that issue.
So we have a principle of compulsory access to all minerals. We have built into the Bill a series of safeguards over and above the compulsory rights order as it exists at present, but we accept that the present system cannot


continue ad infinitum, so we have time-limited it: if no further proposals are made by the Government, the CRO powers will definitely fall away in 1999.
We feel strongly that we need to have a proper review of compulsory access to all minerals and that we should not continue to treat coal separately from other minerals. That is because there is no inherent justification for treating coal separately. We need a review because many interests need to be considered, including those of landowners, farmers, tenants and the various minerals industries. We enter that review with an entirely open mind.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am obliged to my hon. Friend as, I think, the only Member of Parliament who happens to own a coal mine. If Opposition Members come to Fife—they are more than welcome to dine with me and stay with me—I can show them what has been achieved when opencast mining has finished around us: it is a vast improvement in the landscape, on which I place great importance.

Mr. Eggar: My hon. and learned Friend has an extremely valid point. In other parts of the country—forgive my sense of surprise—there are examples of good restitution of opencasted mines.
In view of the assurances that I have given that we shall have an open review of the powers, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and Opposition Members will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Before we move to the vote, I hope that the Minister will answer the question that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about what will occur with the Arkwright opencast development now that the new measure is before us. It is based upon an arrangement that the people in the area will be relocated and given new homes. Is that arrangement guaranteed for the future?

Mr. Eggar: I think it is the first time that I have seen the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) coming to the rescue of the hon. Member for Bolsover, who seemed not to be paying attention. I can inform both hon. Gentlemen that British Coal's commitment to build a new village—including a social centre, houses, shops and a pub—is formalised in an agreement with the local planning authority and would be binding on any successor or transferee.

Mr. Alexander: I should like to thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to the debate. I am not entirely convinced by his argument—no doubt he will not be too surprised to hear that—but I am well aware and mindful of the fact that there will be a further and perhaps more wide-ranging debate on the subject in another place. Bearing in mind that fact, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 53

ENVIRONMENTAL DUTIES IN CONNECTION WITH PLANNING

Mr. Ashby: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 48, line 5, after 'application,', insert
'there shall be a presumption against opencast mining and'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 61, in page 48, line 10, leave out 'and' and insert—

'(aa) to the extent of the environmental impact of the proposal on the area;
(ab) to the balance of costs and benefits of the proposal; and
(ac) to the existence of current opencast mining operations or any such operations as have ceased within a period of five years immediately preceding the date of the application, within a radius of five miles of the proposed site of operations.'.
No. 10, in page 48, line 10, at end insert—

'(aa) to environmental considerations prescribed in relevant local plans; and'.

No. 42, in page 48, line 10, at end insert—

'(ab) to the desirability of avoiding nuisance to nearby residents in the form of dust, noise, vibration, lorry traffic, visual intrusion or loss of amenity, and the need to respond to the expressed concerns of those residents regarding the proposed development; and'.
No. 63, in page 48, line 10, at end insert—
'(3A) A person who formulates coal-mining proposals shall be required for the purposes of paragraphs (aa) and (ab) of subsection (2) above—

(a) to prepare a full environmental impact assessment, and
(b) to prepare a full cost-benefit analysis.'.

No. 62, in page 48, line 24, at end insert—
`(c) to formulate proposals for the compensation of land owners affected by the proposal for any loss of value on their property if sold during the period of opencast mining.'.

Mr. Ashby: Much of the debate in respect of compulsory purchase has taken place during the debate on previous amendments. I did not speak during that debate, but I must say that I can never understand why compulsory purchase orders did not end yesterday—I see no reason to have them in any sector, except in cases of national emergency. That is the stance I have always taken and always will take.
Although I am speaking to amendment No. 60, the gravamen of my case against compulsory purchase and the strengthening of the environmental aspects of compulsory purchase are to be found in my amendment No. 61. I will be seeking the strongest assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister, and if that is not forthcoming I know that I and some of my hon. Friends, as well as some Opposition Members, will seek to divide the House on that amendment.
We have had too little debate about opencast mining during the passage of the Bill, yet it has become the single most important aspect of all coal mining. It is rather sad that we reached this part of the Report stage as late as 9.30 this evening and I know that many of my colleagues wish us to proceed as speedily as possible. However, this is a subject which we could debate for one whole day.
All hon. Members who have opencast mining in their constituencies know how horrific it is and how it causes dirt and filth. They will also know that opencast mining affects those—[interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that conversations will be carried on quietly. The hon. Gentleman is having difficulty in speaking to the amendment, and some of us are interested in hearing what he has to say.

Mr. Ashby: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. It is difficult.
All of us who represent areas in which there is opencast mining know how dreadful it is and how it affects our constituents. Opencast mining is the single most important issue in my constituency where there are not only applications for opencast mines but such mines already exist. An opencast mine affects not only the immediate locality but the area around it. Some people believe that my constituency is in danger of resembling a lunar landscape.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) hit the nail on the head. For too long, British Coal has had the most enormous powers which stem from the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 and have continued under successive Acts. Those Acts mean that we —the people who live in the area and who object to planning—have to prove that opencast mining should not take place. The burden of proof lies with us—we have to prove that something which has a devastating effect on the character of an area and which lowers the value of property should not take place.
It is an insult that a company such as British Coal should be allowed to say that it wants an opencast mine in an area because it believes that it is in the national interest. Without a by your leave, the matter goes before the local planning authority which is terrified of British Coal and starts finding reasons why it should be allowed to proceed and, in any case, it is up to the objectors to prove that it should not be allowed to proceed. The burden of proof in this instance should resemble the law in other aspects of our life. If a company does something that will destroy an area and lower the value of its property, the burden of proof should be on that company to prove that it should be allowed to proceed.
When the planning application has been made, the full extent of the environmental impact of the proposal should be considered. There should be a full environmental impact assessment—nothing less will do. It is no good my hon. Friend the Minister saying that it is a matter for the planning authority, because all the Acts covering the coal industry deal with planning and, in respect of the burden of proof, favour the Coal Board. It is therefore absolutely right that the planning aspect of opencast mining should be dealt with in the Bill.
One of the problems is that planning matters are often dealt with in various sections of various Acts. The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) spoke about the Department's problems in deciding on the legal ways of objecting. It is a minefield, if I may make a slight pun. It is very difficult for legal advisers to decide how to frame objections because they have to consider the provisions of so many different Acts. Perhaps the necessary grounds should be set out in the Bill.
When making a planning application, it is absolutely essential that a full cost-benefit analysis is undertaken. The costs and benefits of any proposal must be examined and must include the need for and price of coal, the cost of extracting it and the environmental cost to the area. It is essential that it should be built into this part of the Bill.
Another aspect should also be built into the Bill. When, as is the case in my area, there is one opencast mine, with another such mine three miles away and another three miles away in a different direction, it has a devastating effect on the area. When an application is made, the fact

that there are opencast mining operations in the locality must be taken into account. Sometimes, one opencast mine has just ceased and, within a year of the hole being filled in—a year after 10 or 15 years of sheer hell—an application is made for another opencast mine only a couple of miles away, so there are another 10 or 15 years of hell. The mining operations move around the constituency in that way. The fact that an operation has ceased in the area should be taken into consideration when an application is made.
Amendment No. 62 states that those making the applications should
formulate proposals for the compensation of land owners affected by the proposal for any loss of value on their property if sold during the period of opencast mining.
That is very important.
I received a letter, as recently as 10 days ago, from a constituent whose house is adjacent to an opencast mine. She is in a desperate situation. She is now a single parent. There has been a divorce in the family and she is desperate to sell her property. Her property has been valued at about 40 per cent. less at the moment because there is an opencast mine nearby. She has no redress; no compensation. She will lose 40 per cent. of the value of her property because there is an opencast mine nearby. She cannot tell the operator, "I have to sell my property now. You have to compensate me for that loss."
That is the purpose of amendment No. 62. I seek an assurance from the Minister that he will consider the problem carefully and ensure that when proposals are made they contain proposals to compensate landowners, in the event of their property having to be sold, for the loss of value during the period of opencast mining.
I have fought opencast mining ever since I became Member of Parliament for Leicestershire, North-West in 1983. Since then, I have fought every single proposal and I will continue to fight every single proposal. The collective effect of the amendments that I suggest will put right so many of the wrongs that have been done when applications have been made. We have fought and refought those applications. One of the problems of which I want the Minister to be aware is that in the past, if British Coal made an application and it was refused, another application was made, then another and another.
Acceptance of the amendments would put right so many of the wrongs that we seek to right.

Mrs. Peacock: I appreciate that there is very little time left, but, having sat here since 2.30 this afternoon, I wish to spend just two minutes on this issue. Perhaps I may be excused also on the ground that I am one of the hon. Members in whose name amendment No. 42 appears.
There should be no need now for a presumption in favour of opencasting. That is not in the nation's interests when we can obtain coal from other sources. In earlier times, it was undoubtedly necessary, but much of the necessity has disappeared. We shall always have some opencast activity. I appreciate that coal obtained in that way is often needed for mixing with deep-mined coal. However, most opencasting should be undertaken on derelict land and not on open green fields. In my area of Yorkshire, it is particularly insensitive to apply for planning permission for opencast mining virtually on top of deep mines that have just been closed. Communities there could hardly be expected to welcome such a move.
We should try to ensure that planning permission for opencast activity is granted in respect of derelict land only.


Certainly the few green fields in the valleys in my area, where there is a great deal of industrial activity, are relied on for leisure, and they should not be put to mining use. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me some assurance in respect of this matter.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Opencasting and planning are inextricably entwined, but it is a great pity that we have to deal in a coal debate with what are essentially planning issues. I asked during the Second Reading debate, as I have done repeatedly following business statements since then, for a separate planning debate to discuss these issues. Alas, that has not materialised and this debate is necessary.
I am not automatically opposed to opencast applications. Last year, together with Opposition Members and the Leeds council, I sponsored legislation to enable a massive opencast development to cure a serious problem of dereliction in my constituency. I accept that where there are infrastructure developments, such as major roads that are undermined by old mine workings, there is a need for opencasting. The land has to be graded and levelled so that the road may be built.
But, just as there are circumstances in which opencasting is acceptable, equally there are circumstances in which it is not acceptable. At present, my constituency is being plagued by a succession of unsuitable opencast applications in respect of the area around the town of Garforth. These put at risk the whole of the planning environment that has been built up for that town. We are attracting world-class, world-quality investment, and the last thing that investors want is an environment shattered by opencast mining on the most sensitive green belt in the entire Leeds area.
I seek three things. The first is the ending of the presumption in favour, in the national interest, of opencasting. The second is recognition of the fact that environmental factors should be decisive in determining opencast planning applications. The third is a provision for local authorities to be able to set the environmental criteria for opencasting, preferably in the local plans affecting their areas. Local people should be able to decide what is right.
As it is late, I shall go into no further detail, save to say that it is interesting that when we are discussing opencasting it is now the Labour party which wants to bring the debate to an end quickly. On all other occasions, Labour Members want to talk indefinitely. There is great uncertainty about whether the three principles that I have mentioned will be enshrined in the revision of minerals planning guidance note 3. I hoped that these issues would be clarified before the Bill left the House. Unfortunately, they have not been. Thus, the amendments are necessary.

Mr. Eggar: I listened with extreme interest to the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). I was not at all surprised to hear them speak very passionately on behalf of their constituents. Indeed, they have been very vociferous in making their concerns known to me over the past few months.
I should like to pick up in particular a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet. This is a matter for planning procedures. The Bill has nothing to do with environmental regulation or with safety regulation.
My hon. Friends have an ideal opportunity to make their points to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As they know, consultation is currently taking place on MPG3. I am sure that my colleagues will pay particular attention to the three points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet. I suggest that my hon. Friends pursue the matter in detail with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, who will doubtless wish to take careful account of the views that they have expressed on behalf of their constituents. The Bill, however, is not the right vehicle in which to introduce the change that they so earnestly desire.

Madam Speaker: What are the wishes of the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) in regard to amendment No. 60?

Mr. Ashby: I wish to withdraw it, Madam Speaker—although I wish to pursue amendment No 61.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 61, in page 48, line 10, leave out 'and' and insert—

'(aa) to the extent of the environmental impact of the proposal on the area;
(ab) to the balance of costs and benefits of the proposal; and
(ac) to the existence of current opencast mining operations or any such operations as have ceased within a period of five years immediately preceding the date of the application, within a radius of five miles of the proposed site of operations.'.—[Mr. Ashby.]

Amendment negatived.

Clause 63

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 60, line 25, at end insert—
'(1A) References in this Act to the treatment of coal in the strata shall be taken not to include references to any operations which—

(a) are carried on in relation to coal in or to which any oil or gas that exists in its natural condition in the strata is absorbed or adsorbed; and
(b) are so carried on wholly for the purpose of winning or getting that oil or gas;

and in this subsection "oil or gas" means oil or gas within the meaning of section 9 above.'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Schedule 9

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 44, in page 139, line 21, at end insert—

'The Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 (c.33)
. In section 28(1) of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 (interpretation), in the definition of "overriding interest", after paragraph (eg) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(eh) insofar as it is an interest vesting by virtue of section 7(3) of the Coal Industry Act 1994, the Coal Authority;" '.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. O'Neill: I am conscious that we are straining the good will of the House; hon. Members anticipated a vote considerably earlier.
We have been debating the Bill since 4 pm, and in that time we have covered a fairly extensive area. We have dealt with concessionary coal and trade union rights following privatisation, we have discussed the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, the latest stage that has been reached in the pensions debate and, in the past two hours, we have discussed, at some length, issues raised by subsidence and opencast mining.
It would be wrong to say that Opposition Members have been successful in regard to any of those issues. Perhaps, if some of the Conservative Members who have spoken today had secured the permission of the Government Chief Whip, they might have been able to speak in Committee and obtain some victories. In that event, the Government might have had to come here tonight to seek changes of their own. The vast bulk of the amendments that we have debated were tabled by Opposition Members, although there is a fair amount of agreement across the Floor on some environmental questions.
We are still opposed to the Bill. We consider coal one of our greatest national assets; we believe that British. Coal and its research departments have succeeded in developing technologies that make coal easier and safer to win than at any time in our history. Moreover, we now have coal that can be burned in coal-fired power stations in a way that is not only environmentally friendly but capable of more thermal efficiency than ever before. That is a testament to the success of public enterprise: in its years of public ownership, the coal industry has been able to achieve safety levels that are without parallel anywhere in the world.
In this connection, it should perhaps be repeated that in 1946, when coal was nationalised, it was commonplace for men working in the British coal industry to die every week. Every year, 1,000 men died in the coal industry. Every day, three men died, so one miner died in every eight-hour shift every working day of every year. The current figures are a fraction of that. They are still too high, but they have reduced because of the safety measures and the industrial procedures we now adopt and, more than anything else, because the hand of profit no longer lies across the industry as it did before public ownership.
We do not believe that a privately-owned coal industry will have learned very much from the past. We expect that the cowboys and fly-by-night operators will be operating not just opencast but deep mining, if they can satisfy the Coal Authority. The criteria of the Coal Authority are nothing like as strict as we would like.
The Labour party is not simply opposed to the Bill; it is also committed to the reintroduction of public ownership of the coal industry. We believe that the coal industry can be safe only when it is in the people's hands and only when miners are employed as public servants.
Earlier tonight, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) said that he was unique in

the House as being the only Member of Parliament who owned a coal mine. As always, the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong. Everybody in the House still owns the British coal mining industry.
Coal is a fuel of the future with a technology that will take it beyond the simple purposes of burning. I spoke last week to the last Labour Minister for coal, Alex Eadie, the former Member of Parliament for Midlothian. He repeated something that I have heard him say many times—that coal is one of the most valuable assets we have; it is too valuable to burn. There are far better uses for it. I doubt that Britain will have a coal industry under private ownership that is capable of taking advantage of the technical opportunities and of meeting the desperate environmental needs that could be alleviated by exploiting clean coal technology.
We believe that the industry has a future, but only in public ownership. When Labour returns to power with the support of the mineworkers and the people dependent on the industry we shall restore it to public ownership and ensure that it is a safe industry for people to work in producing the fuel that the country's long-term energy needs will require. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to vote against Third Reading.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Since Second Reading, the Bill has been changed only by minimal Government amendments. The past two days of debate on Report have shown that, however strong the arguments, the Government will always refuse to accept the need to amend the legislation to deal with fundamental issues raised on both sides of the House.
Yesterday, we debated the duties and responsibilities of those who may take over the pits to protect against mine water flooding. Today, we have had consensus across the House on the importance of having a presumption against opencasting and for protecting underground mining rather than developing opencasting. There was no adequate guarantee on subsidence or that rights and liabilities will be upheld. There was no adequate answer on CISWO and the welfare interests of mining communities. There was no guarantee about the future of British Coal Enterprise. On all the specific matters on Report there have been no concessions from the Government, however logical the arguments.
The fundamental reason why the Bill should not receive a Third Reading is that the Government are trying to sell off the industry without any security for coal. The reason is the same one for which they were criticised on Second Reading. They did not come to the House willing to put coal securely in the context of the energy industry and to review that industry. Instead, they have considered the coal industry on its own, piecemeal and not within the context of the taxation system.
There has been no energy review or review of the nuclear industry. We still await that. Neither has there been a review of the subsidy of nuclear fuel and the consequent advantage that it has over coal. We have had no guarantee that we will try to find the best environmental strategy for the energy industry. There has been no review of the future of electricity generation. Until the Government realise that they are not dealing competently with energy—for example, by producing a strategic energy policy, which is


their duty—and that energy, taxation and all our assets must be considered and decided together, they do not deserve support in this place or outside it.
The Government are trying to pull off a speedy sell-off, with no security for coal. As an energy strategy that is irresponsible and is a betrayal of those people in the coal industry who have contributed to Britain being an energy-rich, energy-efficient and energy-prosperous country. For that reason, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will join other Opposition Members and, I hope, some Conservative Members in opposing the Government as we have opposed them at earlier stages of the Bill.

Mr. Barron: I rise for a few minutes to take up one of the major issues that will result from this privatisation Bill. For many years, the Government believed that the size of the British deep-mined coal industry had to be reduced dramatically. That policy has greatly damaged employment prospects in coal mining and in the service industries and has caused many hon. Members problems. Thousands of young people have not had the opportunity to go into the mining industry that I and many other people had when we left school many years ago.
The last phase of the closure programme started in October 1992, when the Government announced that they would reduce the number of pits to that envisaged in the Rothschild report, although it was denied that that was the intention when the report was first leaked in 1991. At that time, the Minister for Energy and the President of the Board of Trade laid great store by the fact that anyone who lost his job would be protected by the announced redundancy payments.
I questioned the Minister in February and he replied:
The Government is prepared to fund the current redundancy terms for miners until 30th April 1994, and where redundancies are proposed before 30th April, for so long as the consultations with the unions on any such proposal continue.
That statement—I hope that the Minister will listen—has thrown the British Coal work force into confusion. Last night, I spoke to Stan Robinson, who works at Kiveton colliery in my constituency, which is one of the 12 market-tested pits that Conservative Members thought that they had saved. He told me that on 20 January the work force heard from senior management that it had four different options for the future of that colliery. Two would involve the colliery continuing to produce coal until 1995, one would involve it producing coal until early September 1994 and the fourth option was that the mine would close in April.
The House will know that, for some people, enhanced redundancy payments can mean additional sums of up to £17,000, yet two months after the consultation meeting at Kiveton colliery the work force have had no definite statement of British Coal's intentions. British Coal can rightly be accused of being guilty of mental torture of the work force.
Maltby colliery in my constituency is to restart production in September. Originally, it was to be mothballed. More than 100 British Coal employees appear to be left with the choice of accepting redundancy, within the terms of the Minister's reply to me, or risking losing the chance of that enhanced redundancy payment if they wait, and a different employer makes them redundant after the

industry is privatised. Are the Government prepared to inform British Coal that people who remain in the industry after April will have the enhanced redundancy payments that they currently enjoy protected? It is grossly unfair that people whose interests Conservative Members voted to protect in 1992 and 1993 will have a gun held at their heads again over the next six weeks.
What are the implications for the British Coal part-time workers who have been made redundant of the House of Lords ruling of 3 March? Most of them were women who worked as cleaners or canteen staff. The European Court of Justice states:
According to the case law of the Court … the concept of 'pay' within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty comprises of any consideration, whether in cash or kind, whether immediate or future, provided that the employee receives it, albeit indirectly, in respect of his employment from his employer, whether under a contract of employment, legislative provisions or made ex gratia by the employer.
In the House of Lords judgment of 3 March, Lord Keith of Kinkel expressed this opinion:
The provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, whereby employees who work for fewer than 16 hours per week are subject to different conditions in respect of qualification for redundancy pay from those which apply to employees who work for 16 hours per week or more, are incompatible with Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome".
Will the Minister tell me and the hundreds of part-time workers made redundant by British Coal whether they now qualify for some of the enhanced redundancy payments made to mineworkers over many years? I hope that the Minister can answer. I hope also that Conservative Members will put pressure on Ministers who said that they would protect the interests of British miners undergoing the restructuring phase. They are not. Those workers will have a gun at their heads for the next weeks. It is disgraceful that they still do not know whether they will forgo tens of thousands of pounds if they hang on to the unforeseen future of coal privatisation.

Mr. Hardy: The Bill is one too far. It demonstrates complete insensitivity to history and the way that the Administration are spurning the very concept of one nation —and it will not a put a feather in any prime ministerial hat. The Bill will certainly mean that all the rest of the days of this Parliament will make no difference—at the end of it, that lot will be gone.

Mr. Hood: I rise to comment on this objectionable Bill and to express my criticism of the recent cat-calling from the Government side of the House against hon. Members who wanted to make a contribution. It seems that Conservative Members are more concerned about getting home to their beds early than hearing what this Government are all about. The day will come—tragically, it may not be their generation who will suffer but those that follow—when the folly of giving the Bill a Third Reading will be realised.
Earlier this week, Lady Thatcher fainted. She will not need smelling salts tonight, because she will be really up —really pleased to see the Bill receive a Third Reading, because she came to power in 1979 to achieve what the Government seek to achieve tonight.
The Bill is an insult to our history. There are no economic or political reasons for it. Mines were nationalised in 1947, not because nationalisation was a


wonderful idea but because of the failure of private enterprise to run an important industry in the interests of the nation.
I have sat here over the past seven years and listened to Euro-sceptics talk about our giving away the sovereignty of Parliament while the Government give away our natural energy and destroy the coal industry, as they are doing tonight. It is even worse than that. Only a couple of years ago we criticised Bob Maxwell—and rightly so—for stealing £500 million of Mirror pension funds. We have a Government who are putting their hands into miners' pension funds with this Bill and saying nothing about it. The Government are stealing from the miners 10 times what Maxwell stole from the Mirror pensioners. It is an outrage and it will come back to haunt the Government.
The hon. Member for 'Worcester (Mr. Luff) can laugh and sneer. He is a young whippersnapper and does not know what it is like to work eight hours in any day to earn his living. The Government have destroyed the lives of thousands of miners, their families and their communities. It is a shame on him and on the House that we should be considering such a Bill here tonight.

Mr. Barnes: This is a sad Bill, because it comes on top of the Government's destruction of the coal mining industry. They have destroyed communities and a resource that we in this country should be able to use. Coming on top of that destruction, the Bill is inopportune. After the wounds that have been inflicted on the coal industry, it should have a period of stability in which it can mobilise and organise the bits that are left. Instead, we have a radical piece of legislation that is affecting a whole host of areas, including pensions, concessionary coal, opencast mining and people's futures.
The Government should not be pushing this measure on people who have suffered under the previous measures, because it is inappropriate and inopportune. There should be time to recover from the burdens that the Government have placed on our communities.

Mr. Bell: Following on from what was said by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), my hon. Friends the Members for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), if ever there was an industry that should never have been privatised, it is the coal industry. The ramifications go far beyond the question simply of money and production. The consequences for the environment and for families in mining areas throughout the country have been too enormous for the Bill to address.
It was George Orwell who called the miners the caryatids of the earth. That was at a time when miners had dignity, their families had respect and they lived in that dignity and respect. We are seeing tonight a Bill that brings to an end a nationalised industry that was one of the greatest industries in our country and whose work force was one of the greatest in our country. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan touched on this gently. It was General MacArthur who once said, "I shall return." We shall return again to the coal industry. We shall return again to miners and their families. We shall return again to

an industry that will be strong. We shall return again to a Government who have an energy policy. We shall return again to a coal mining industry that belongs to the people.

Mr. Eggar: The transfer of the coal industry to the private sector is a momentous step. It has widespread ramifications in the crucial areas of safety, pensions, subsidence, licensing and the environment. The Government have spelt out policies that pay due regard to the importance of the issues concerned and have made available to the House the fullest possible information.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), like all other Liberals, has opposed this privatisation Bill just as he has opposed every other privatisation Bill that has been introduced by the Government. But he does so, as ever, in a highly irresponsible way. I refer him to the Liberal Democrats' manifesto of April 1992. What does it say with regard to the coal industry? It states:
We will liberalise the coal industry by transferring ownership of coal reserves to the Crown … and issuing licences to operate pits to other groups, as well as British Coal".
What will the Government do under the terms of the Bill? What have the Government done as a result of the decision to lease and license pits? Exactly that. It is typical of the Liberal party that it fails to recognise the fact, and to give credit where credit is due. As ever, the Liberal party says one thing in the House but another in its manifesto and yet another out in the country.
When the Government first announced our policy of privatising the coal industry, it was rightly described as the ultimate privatisation. It could more accurately be described as an idea whose time has come. What has given rise to that change in attitude? More than anything, it has been the debate on the Bill.
Before we started dealing with the Bill I should have been hard pressed to say what the arguments were in favour of a state-run coal industry. But I imagined that Opposition Members would find and put forward those arguments. In fact, we did not hear one reasoned argument from them in favour of state ownership. Instead, at the 59th minute of the 11 th hour of the debate the chief Opposition spokesman gave us an uncosted pledge to renationalise the industry in future. I hope that he has checked his figures with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), because he thereby entered into a major spending commitment, which we shall cost and draw attention to in future.
The fact is that there has been no sensible argument in favour of—

Mr. Hood: Without compensation.

Mr. Eggar: No compensation? Now we are getting down to the real arguments at the core of the Labour party. Two Labour Members have said that they would not pay compensation. I am prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). Will he now confirm that his pledge to renationalise the coal industry means that he will do so without compensation?

Mr. O'Neill: The Labour party has always paid compensation when it has taken anything into public ownership. Those who seek to do anything else are in no way representative of the Labour party's record or of its likely future policies.

Mr. Eggar: So the hon. Gentleman has now made a spending pledge and taken on other Labour Members head on. I am most willing to give way to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) if he would like to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Hood: I am delighted to answer the Minister, and I shall give him my view frankly. In answer to his challenge, I say that if the Government are silly enough to give our industry away we should be brave enough to take it back without compensation.

Mr. Eggar: We have just had more of a debate on Labour's attitude to nationalisation and to the private sector than we have had in the previous 65 hours of debate on the Bill.
Let us face the fact that the most deep-rooted and pervasive problem besetting the British coal industry has been and remains state ownership. Privatisation is the solution to the problem that state ownership has caused. We believe that the industry must be returned to the private sector as soon as possible, because that is the way for the future.
I urge my hon. Friends to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 271.

Division No. 179]
[10.58 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carrington, Matthew


Aitken, Jonathan
Carttiss, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Cash, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Churchill, Mr


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clappison, James


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ancram, Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Arbuthnot, James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Colvin, Michael


Ashby, David
Congdon, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cormack, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cran, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bates, Michael
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Batiste, Spencer
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bellingham, Henry
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bendall, Vivian
Day, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Devlin, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dicks, Terry


Booth, Hartley
Dorrell, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dover, Den


Bowden, Andrew
Duncan, Alan


Bowis, John
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dunn, Bob


Brandreth, Gyles
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brazier, Julian
Dykes, Hugh


Bright, Graham
Eggar, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Elletson, Harold


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Butler, Peter
Evennett, David


Butterfill, John
Faber, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fabricant, Michael





Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Legg, Barry


Fishburn, Dudley
Leigh, Edward


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forth, Eric
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lidington, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lightbown, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


French, Douglas
Lord, Michael


Fry, Sir Peter
Luff, Peter


Gale, Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gallie, Phil
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, Sir George
MacKay, Andrew


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maclean, David


Garnier, Edward
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gillan, Cheryl
Madel, Sir David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Maitland, Lady Olga


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malone, Gerald


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mans, Keith


Gorst, John
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mates, Michael


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hague, William
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Sir Roger


Hanley, Jeremy
Monro, Sir Hector


Hannam, Sir John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus



Hargreaves, Andrew
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Nick
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hendry, Charles
Norris, Steve


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Ottaway, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Page, Richard


Horam, John
Paice, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Jack, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Richards, Rod


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sackville, Tom


Knapman, Roger
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, Sir David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shersby, Michael







Sims, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tracey, Richard


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Tredinnick, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Trend, Michael


Soames, Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Speed, Sir Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spencer, Sir Derek
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walden, George


Spink, Dr Robert
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spring, Richard
Waller, Gary


Sproat, Iain
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Waterson, Nigel


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Watts, John


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Stephen, Michael
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan
Whittingdale, John


Streeter, Gary
Widdecombe, Ann


Sumberg, David
Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Sweeney, Walter
Wilkinson, John


Sykes, John
Willetts, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thomason, Roy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)



Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Thurnham, Peter



Townend, John (Bridlington)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chisholm, Malcolm


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clapham, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Alton, David
Clelland, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Coffey, Ann


Armstrong, Hilary
Cohen, Harry


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Connarty, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Austin-Walker, John
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Corston, Ms Jean


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Cryer, Bob


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cummings, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dafis, Cynog


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dalyell, Tam


Benton, Joe
Darling, Alistair


Bermingham, Gerald
Davidson, Ian


Berry, Dr. Roger
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Betts, Clive
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blair, Tony
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blunkett, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Boateng, Paul
Denham, John


Boyes, Roland
Dewar, Donald


Bradley, Keith
Dixon, Don


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Donohoe, Brian H.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Byers, Stephen
Eagle, Ms Angela


Caborn, Richard
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim
Enright, Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fatchett, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Faulds, Andrew


Cann, Jamie
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fisher, Mark





Flynn, Paul
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McWilliam, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Madden, Max


Foulkes, George
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Fraser, John
Mahon, Alice


Fyfe, Maria
Mandelson, Peter


Galbraith, Sam
Marek, Dr John


Galloway, George
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gapes, Mike
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Garrett, John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


George, Bruce
Martlew, Eric


Gerrard, Neil
Maxton, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Meacher, Michael


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Meale, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Michael, Alun


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gordon, Mildred
Milburn, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Miller, Andrew


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morgan, Rhodri


Grocott, Bruce
Morley, Elliot


Gunnell, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Hain, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hall, Mike
Mudie, George


Hanson, David
Mullin, Chris


Hardy, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Harman, Ms Harriet
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Olner, William


Hinchliffe, David
O'Neill, Martin


Hoey, Kate
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Home Robertson, John
Parry, Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Patchett, Terry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L.


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Prescott, John


Hutton, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Ingram, Adam
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Radice, Giles


Jamieson, David
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Raynsford, Nick


Johnston, Sir Russell
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rendel, David


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jowell, Tessa
Rogers, Allan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooney, Terry


Keen, Alan
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Ruddock, Joan


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Khabra, Piara S.
Sheerman, Barry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Terry
Short, Clare


Litherland, Robert
Simpson, Alan


Livingstone, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAllion, John
Snape, Peter


McAvoy, Thomas
Soley, Clive


Macdonald, Calum
Spearing, Nigel


McFall, John
Speller, John


McKelvey, William
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


McLeish, Henry
Stevenson, George


McMaster, Gordon
Stott, Roger






Strang, Dr. Gavin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wilson, Brian


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dennis
Wise, Audrey


Tyler, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Vaz, Keith
Wray, Jimmy


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Wright, Dr Tony


Walley, Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert N
Tellers for the Noes:


Watson, Mike
Mr. Jim Dowd and Mr. Eric Illsley.


Wicks, Malcolm



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PETITION

Peakes Parkway, Grimsby

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I wish to present a petition from Marjorie Mary Blyth of 68 Highfield avenue and from 3,146 other residents of Highfield avenue and Peaksfield avenue in Grimsby against Humberside county council's compulsory purchase order to build the Peakes Parkway in Grimsby.
The petitioners object to the purchase order and to the Peakes Parkway scheme because it builds a major road through a densely populated area; because the quiet location of the area was an incentive for them to purchase their homes in the first place; because the road will run 18 to 20 m from their front windows; because they will lose their front gardens to the road; because they fear for their health if the land is taken to build the new highway; and because the noise and pollution created would confine the elderly and bronchial sufferers to stay indoors.
They object also because they question the validity of the scheme—the cost has escalated from £7.5 million to £14 million in three years and will probably be £20 million at the end—and because they feel that the road is unnecessary.
The petition ends:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House that the Order may not be brought into operation.

To lie upon the Table.

Uganda (Debt)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. Mike Watson: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the matter of debt in Uganda on the Adjournment of the House. Uganda is the fourth poorest country in the world, with a gross national product per capita of just $170 in 1991. Despite having access to every available debt relief measure already instituted by northern creditors, it still faces a foreign debt of some $2.6 billion. That debt is simply unpayable.
The most recently available figures show that Uganda pays about $100 million a year in debt servicing and repayments, which approximates to one third of the Ugandan Government's budget, and almost four times the amount spent on health and education combined throughout the country. Last year, debt service payments accounted for 48 per cent. of the value of all exports from Uganda. If the total debt service owed to all creditors had been met, the figure would have risen to a massive 83 per cent. of exports.
Further consideration should be given to the extent to which Uganda is able to tackle the severe health problems which afflict its people. Many tropical diseases are endemic, and AIDS is a major problem. The HIV-positive level among women in Uganda is a frightening 17 per cent. Yet Uganda is able to spend only half of the World Health Organisation recommended minimum of $12 per head for sub-Saharan Africa. Of that, a mere 20 per cent., or just over $1 per person, is contributed by the Ugandan Government themselves. The remainder comes from donor sources.
In quoting a raft of statistics, one runs the risk of obscuring the reality of the argument. The bare facts in respect of Uganda are that the country is stuck in a quagmire of debt, and is in real danger of being sucked under. The tragedy is that, unlike some other countries defined by the World bank as severely indebted low-income countries, Uganda has not deliberately defaulted on its debts.
In 1987, the Ugandan Government, assisted by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, embarked on an economic recovery programme. It aimed to promote economic rehabilitation and growth, restore internal financial stability and establish a liberal economic environment which encouraged private sector investment. It succeeded. The result has been a liberalisation of prices, the removal of trade restrictions, the privatisation of state enterprises, and cuts in the numbers of people employed in the civil service and the armed forces.
I am by nature, as you might understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, suspicious of and even hostile to such structural adjustment programmes imposed by the international financial institutions on countries such as Uganda. All too often they represent the application of a model of economic management which fails to understand the basic needs of people living in the world's poorest countries, and lead to living standards being driven still further downwards. However, in the case of Uganda, like it or not, the programme worked.
The IMF and the World bank arranged financing of about $1.2 billion for the programme, and the result has been a reduction of inflation to below 1 per cent. by the


middle of last year, from an all-time high of 240 per cent. in 1987. A revised version of the economic reforms was agreed for 1991–94, accompanied by additional financing of $1.7 billion. The result is that Uganda's economy grew by 7 per cent. in 1992–93, and a further 5 per cent. growth is forecast for the current year. The 1991 programme also involved a debt management strategy designed to reduce accumulated arrears and achieve a sustainable level of debt service.
So the Ugandan Government have done everything that could reasonably be expected of them to regenerate their economy and reduce their debt under existing rules. Yet they remain saddled with a crippling and still mounting debt burden. Their major problem is multilateral debt, almost exclusively to the IMF and the World bank. That accounts for almost 70 per cent. of Uganda's total—about three times the average for sub-Saharan African countries.
Crucially, annual debt servicing to the IMF bleeds one third of Uganda's foreign exchange earnings. If repayments owed to the IMF, most of which were loaned on a non-concessional basis, continue to increase at the present rate, in 1997–98 cash flows from that organisation to Uganda will be negative. What possible justification could there be for one of the world's poorest countries paying money to one of the world's richest multilateral organisations? The lunatics really are poised to take over the asylum, if they are not already installed.
It should be clearly stated and understood that no meaningful reduction in Uganda's crushing debt burden is possible until its payments to those institutions are reduced. Although the World bank accounts for a large proportion of total debt stock, it has provided a net transfer of funds to Uganda of about $600 million since 1987. That was facilitated through the conversion of International Bank for Reconstruction and Development loans into IDA concessional terms under its fifth dimension programme. Despite this, debt servicing to the bank remains high, and existing measures must be accelerated through the provision of additional resources.
Attempts by the IMF to increase concessionality through the enhanced structural adjustment facility have failed to alleviate the burden of Uganda's repayments, and its present soft loan agreement with ESAF comes to an end in November this year. The only practical option available to Uganda is to seek a replenishment of the ESAF to carry it over the next few years.
Currently, the Ugandan Government are using aid given for balance of payments support to repay multilateral debt. So bilateral debt is incurred to meet the immediate payments due under multilateral debt—never its donors' intended purpose. Bilateral debt to the so-called Paris Club currently stands at $282 million, or 11 per cent. of Uganda's debt. But, under club rules, there cannot be any rescheduling or reduction of debt contracted after a country's first visit to the club—in Uganda's case, 1981.
So the Ugandan Government are left with an unsustainable debt repayment bill to the Paris Club, which amounts to a convincing case for bringing forward the cut-off date. This should certainly be no earlier than 1986, when the present Government, under President Museveni, took office. It is surely wrong—not to say grossly unfair —to hold the present Government and the Ugandan People liable for debts incurred by earlier autocratic regimes which abused human rights and siphoned off millions of dollars of aid assistance, some of which left the country, never to return.
What can be done to provide the helping hand which Uganda needs so desperately? Earlier this month, my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), accompanied by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and Mrs. Carolyn Culey of Oxfam, visited Uganda. My hon. Friend reported that, while scarcely surprised to find the country facing severe economic difficulties, he was nonetheless shocked to learn at first hand of the price being paid by ordinary Ugandans for the debt crisis burdening their country.
He saw the extraordinary efforts being made by Ugandan health professionals, as well as British aid agencies, to tackle not only the AIDS pandemic but also the results of poor nutrition and the remaining effects of the dreadful civil wars of the 1970s and early 1980s. He was in no doubt that the current health crisis which afflicts the country is not the result just of bad luck or bad planning, the legacy of the Amin tyranny, or the falling price of coffee on the world commodities market. It was clear that the major factor is the diversion of scarce resources from human development to debt repayment.
All members of the delegation returned with the unshakeable belief that, as Uganda has taken every possible step to deal with the internal causes of its debt, urgent action is needed to assist it in dealing with the external causes. I strongly support the view of Oxfam that the international community which lent money to Uganda has a responsibility to help Uganda to repay it.
For some time now, as part of its "Africa: Make or Break" campaign, with which I am privileged to be involved, Oxfam has called for the Governments of the northern nations to encourage the IMF to sell part of its gold stocks. That would generate the necessary resources to write off the debt owed to the fund by Uganda, as well as several of the other most heavily indebted countries.
It would hardly represent a revolutionary step—after all, the IMF's original structural adjustment facility was financed by this method, and, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently proposed a further sale to finance the replenishment of ESAF. For Uganda, it would represent a lifeline.
The British Government have recently shown their willingness to take the lead at G7 level in relation to finding a means of relieving the most indebted nations. The proposal to reduce the Trinidad terms is perhaps the most obvious, but the pressure applied on the Japanese in Washington last year by the Chancellor also represented a welcome initiative, and an attempt to achieve agreement within the world's richest nations on the question of debt.
Tonight I ask the Economic Secretary what steps he is prepared to take in terms of the case of Uganda. There is nothing more which Uganda can do itself to address its debt problems. Will the Government accept that the international community should now accept its share of the responsibility? In the past, money was lent recklessly at high interest rates to Governments which squandered it. Why should the present Government of Uganda bear sole responsibility for that?
On current projections, there will be a net outflow of around $200 million over the next five years from Uganda to the IMF as ESAF repayments become due. Will the Government accept that it is morally wrong for one of the world's poorest nations to be transferring resources to one of the richest institutions? If not, why not?
Until now, the Government and most of their northern counterparts have argued that multilateral debt cannot be


written off, because to do so would undermine the credibility of the international financial institutions, while selling part of the IMF's gold stocks would generate inflationary pressures. I suggest that such assertions do not withstand close scrutiny. I have already referred to the sale of gold stocks and the precedents for it.
Given the relatively small scale of finance involved and the depressed state of the global economy, it is difficult to envisage how any of the actions that I have suggested might cause serious inflationary pressure. Fears about setting precedents for middle-income countries could be answered by imposing strict criteria for eligibility.
Further, what do the Government have to say about the ability of developing countries to pay their debts? Governments have accepted that as the critical factor in dealing with bilateral debt—rightly so—so what is the rationale for refusing to apply the same principle to multilateral debt? Why should not there be limited reductions for severely indebted low-income countries, of which Uganda is one of the most extreme examples?
If the Government will not meet such a request, will the Economic Secretary agree to take steps to deal with Uganda's immediate problem? For example, will the Government make an additional £5 million available in response to the Ugandan Government's appeal for a £25 million fund to meet debt repayments? Uganda needs that level of support immediately in order to make repayments to the multilateral agencies. Failure to meet those obligations will jeopardise Uganda's ability to secure desperately needed development assistance.
I have already mentioned the difficulties in relation to bilateral debt and the Paris Club. There is a strong political case for moving the cut-off date in Uganda's case to 1986 when the present Government took office. Will the Government support that idea? I believe that they should. The club has a rule that debt which has already been rescheduled once cannot be reconsidered. It would be helpful, to say the least, if that rule could be relaxed; I have to ask whether the Government would be prepared to argue for that on Uganda's behalf with other club members.
What will the Government do to help Uganda? The case for coming to Uganda's aid is perhaps the strongest that can be made on behalf of any developing country. If the Government are not prepared to help, it sends a grim message to the people not only of that beleaguered country but those of sub-Saharan Africa as a whole. I hope that, for their sake, the Economic Secretary will respond positively.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): I applaud the determination of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) to raise this issue on the Adjournment, and I congratulate him on doing so in such compelling terms. It is a considerable tribute to him and to the issue that he has raised that the debate is so well attended by hon. Members of both parties. I acknowledge immediately that the matter has been raised by many of our constituents, and I know that interest in it goes beyond those hon. Members able to attend tonight to people outside.
I acknowledge in particular the presence of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) who has been to Uganda recently. I have of course had a report of his visit

and the deliberations that he had there. I also acknowledge the interest of my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who have written to me separately.
Uganda is a beautiful but troubled country. It is a country of great riches but of great poverty, too. Many of us are conscious of our bilateral and multilateral obligations to those who have struggled with the millstone of debt and the heritage of repression which Uganda has undoubtedly has. Therefore, the sentiments behind and the contents of the hon. Gentleman's speech were well received by the House.

Mr. William Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that President Museveni has fought valiantly for the people of Uganda, and that the prospect of hundreds and thousands of people being driven across the border from the Sudan as a result of the Muslim fundamentalism movement would place an even more intolerable burden on the people of Uganda and make the problems highlighted by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) even worse than they are now?

Mr. Nelson: I agree that the cause and effect of such migration will be a tragedy, and I know the interest that my hon. Friend has in that matter. I believe that he is to visit the country concerned shortly, and I shall be interested in his observations when he returns. I thank him for his contribution to the debate.
Uganda is one of the world's poorest and most indebted countries. The Government recognise that Uganda, like many similar developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, is confronted by an unsustainable debt burden. I assure the House that I share many of the anxieties that have been expressed.
The Government, and especially my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have taken a leading role in the development of realistic and sustainable solutions to the problem of developing country debt. It is important to recognise that there can be no simple blanket solution that is equally applicable to all developing countries. That is why the Government's policy is based on a case-by-case approach. We believe that, for the poorest and most indebted countries, simply refinancing and rescheduling debt service obligations is not enough. If those countries are to make progress towards sustainable economic development, debt reduction is essential.
However, it is wrong to attribute all the problems of developing countries to high levels of external debt as the debt is often a symptom of deeper economic problems. The Government believe that, if the long-term prospects of developing countries are to be sustainable, those fundamental economic problems must be tackled. For that reason, we are committed to working closely with our colleagues in the Paris Club group of creditor Governments and the international financial institutions.
As the House will know, the Paris Club now grants debt rescheduling to the poorest and most indebted countries, under what is known as the Trinidad terms. That concessional form of debt rescheduling is the direct result of an initiative that was launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1990.
As a result of the Trinidad terms initiative, 20 countries, including Uganda, have to date benefited from a reduction in their official debt burdens, almost $6 billion of debts


have been restructured and more than $2 billion of debt has been forgiven. Those Paris Club agreements include a commitment from creditors to consider a reduction of the whole stock of official bilateral debt after three to four years, subject to satisfactory performance under an International Monetary Fund programme.
Although those agreements represent a substantial achievement, the Government believe that more could be done to help countries such as Uganda. We are urging our fellow Paris Club creditors to improve the existing Trinidad terms. We hope that they will agree to give debt reduction along the lines of the Prime Minister's original 1990 proposal.
Especially, we believe that some countries should be eligible for an immediate stock of debt reduction—possibly up to 80 cent. in the most deserving cases. To qualify for such treatment, countries would have to be up to date with their debt service payments and have established a one to two-year record of economic reform under an IMF programme.
There is still some work to do before a Paris Club consensus can be achieved, but we are hopeful that such stock of debt operations can be agreed for one or more countries this year. If we are successful, we hope that Uganda can be among the first beneficiaries, although that will partly depend on other creditors' views.
Of course, the Paris Club can only contribute to easing the burden of official bilateral debt. For most countries, but especially in Uganda's case, that is only one part of the story, for more than 60 per cent. of Uganda's debt is owed to the international financial institutions—as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central pointed out.
Uganda's outstanding debts to the World bank currently stand at $1.8 billion, and she owes a further $362 million to the IMF. Those figures are substantial, but it is important not to lose sight of the fact that cash flow and the ability to pay are at least as important as the level of indebtedness.
Indeed, it is worth remembering that more than 90 per cent. of Uganda's debt to the international financial institutions is on concessional terms, designed expressly to assist the poor countries. Especially, Uganda has benefited from the World bank's International Development Association and the IMF's enhanced structural adjustment facility. Those are both sources of highly concessional long-term finance, with interest rates of only 0.5 per cent. The United Kingdom is an important contributor to both.
In December, the Government announced that they would provide an extra £50 million to help enlarge the enhanced structural adjustment facility. That is in addition to our original contribution of up to £327 million. The United Kingdom has also contributed £620 million to the most recent replenishment of the IDA. Further help in meeting the interest payments on Uganda's nonconcessional World bank loans has also been forthcoming, through the bank's fifth dimension facility.
It is also important to remember that the picture in Uganda is dynamic, not static. In 1992—the latest year for which World bank figures are available—Uganda made debt servicing payments of $37 million to the international financial institutions. However, in the same year, those institutions made positive net transfers to Uganda of $162 million.
The World bank expects its disbursements to Uganda to continue to exceed repayments for several years. Furthermore, although Uganda faces sharp rises in its debt service obligations to the IMF, it is also eligible for a

further ESAF arrangement under the enlarged facility. If this is agreed, the funds provided are likely to exceed, or at least match, debt service payments to the IMF.
There is another way in which the World bank has assisted Uganda. In February 1993, Uganda completed a buy-back operation on $153 million of its commercial debt. Under the terms of the agreement, Uganda paid a cash settlement of just 12 per cent. of the face value of that debt, using grants provided through the debt reduction facility of the International Development Association.
In recent weeks, the Government have received a number of representations urging us to support the writing off of Uganda's debt to the international financial institutions. However, the funds of both the IMF and World bank are finite and revolving. They are intended to be available for use by members when and where they are most needed. Writing off debts owed to these institutions would reduce the pool of funds available, and risk undermining their ability to assist all developing countries.
In the case of the World bank, debt write-offs might endanger its high credit rating. It is this high credit rating that allows it to raise money on the most favourable terms, and keeps the interest rates that it charges on its own loans as low as possible.
The Government recognise that the process of economic adjustment for countries like Uganda is long and difficult, especially when their adjustment efforts are hampered by high debt burdens. The Government are committed to assisting this vital adjustment. Last year, aid of £15 million was agreed for Uganda. This will help support economic reform.
However, it is also crucial that progress be made on the problem of Uganda's debt burden, and the Government have been working on ways to achieve this. To date, Uganda has benefited from a concessional rescheduling of its official bilateral debts and from targeted, conditional and highly concessional financial facilities from the international financial institutions.
The Government very much hope that further support from the Paris Club will be forthcoming this year, in the form of a stock of debt reduction, and we shall do everything in our power to achieve this. Furthermore, our representatives in the World bank and the IMF will continue to look for new ways to support Uganda's adjustment efforts.
There are just two more positive things that I want to say in response to the hon. Gentleman. The first is that, as I said earlier, Uganda received a Trinidad terms rescheduling in 1992. Any future discussion of Uganda's Paris Club debts might consider whether the existing cut-off date could be moved from 1981. That point was raised by the hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech.
Under existing Paris Club rules, debts contracted after the cut-off date cannot be rescheduled. But the United Kingdom could, and would be willing to, agree to a call to have the cut-off date moved so as to increase the amount of debt that could be rescheduled. In other words, we agree with the hon. Gentleman. But this is not something that can be done bilaterally; it needs the co-operation of others.
Secondly—this is an important point—the Paris Club is now seriously considering the possibility of early stock of debt operations, although in this area, too, consensus has yet to be reached. However, the United Kingdom has identified Uganda and Bolivia as two front runners for such treatment, and we shall seek every opportunity to press the claims of these most troubled countries.
In raising this matter, the hon. Gentleman has done a service not just to the House but, in particular, to Uganda. I applaud the way in which he introduced the debate, and

I congratulate all hon. Members, on both sides, for their presence and for their interest in this most important and pressing matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Twelve midnight.